The Leopard Will Change His Spots

Book of Obama Chapter 13

And the Holy One, anointed by Holy Chief of Justice, John of Roberts, returned to the Dome of the Capital, dressed in the Holy suit and tie and addressed the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far, the Anointed One, Wearer of the Mantle of Power, spoke:

I ended the war in Iraq, I killed the evil bin Laden, and personally I welcomed all the soldiers home from Iraq. I am the Holy One, the President and I can do everything.  I have brought peace to the world, the world respects us better now than at any time, I will end the war in Afghanistan too.  For I am the Messiah of the World.

I want all of you, My slaves oops My people to remember what I did for you after World War 2.  My Grandfather who fought with Patton (and liberated Auschwitz) and My Grandmother who built the entire US Navy by herself, got to go to college for nothing.  They built the US to its greatness all by themselves.

But now I see that you have done everything to destroy Me.  You have overspent, you have destroyed My credit (and yours), you have bought homes that you could not afford.  But I am here.  I will pay your mortgages.  I will refinance your mortgages.  I will make it all better.  I am your Savior.

I will prevent jobs from going overseas.  I will investigate businesses who outsource their jobs to China.  (That is until Warren Buffet tells Me to stop.)  There will be no more bailouts for banks, for Wall Street, for anyone, except for Unions.  I saved the auto industry.  No one helped Me.  And they are stronger now than before.  (Sorry about the Volt thing.)  I will make other nations have an equal playing field with Me.  I am the equalizer.

I will tax the rich higher.  And I will tax everyone else higher too.  I will change the tax code.  I am Omnipotent.  I can and will do all.

I salute America's teachers.  I stand by your unions.  I will throw more money to you so you can indoctrinate the children.  I want a law saying that a child must stay in school until either he or she graduates or turns 18.  That way I can have them indoctrinated to be our slaves.  I will find a way to destroy the home schools, the private schools (But not the ones My daughters attend.), and the religious schools.  Everyone will learn the same, think the same, live the same.  Everyone will get free college under Me.  (Except to the "good" schools.)

I will give citizenship to every immigrant to the United States.  It matters not to Me if they are legally here or not.  And I demand that this be done before the November elections (I need the votes.).

I will create jobs in energy.  I will have the oil fields opened up.  (Until the environmentalists either go to court or demand that I stop.)  I demand that we develop alternate energy (The people who created Solyndra have given Me more money.  I need to give them more government funds.)  Under Me the United States has imported less oil than in the last 16 years.  (Not really but if you tell a lie long and loud enough the sheeple will believe it.)

I will clear away all the Red Tape, all the government regulations that hold business down.  But only until I am re-elected.  Then not only will it all return but I will impose stricter restrictions upon the land.

Under My leadership the Muslim world has undergone transformations.  I was the cause of the Arab Spring, the Arab renewal, the Muslim revival.  This is all good in My eye.  I will remove Assad from Syria, nukes from Iran and Jews from Palestine.  I will defeat the evil Netanyahu and replace him with the moderate Abbas.  There will be peace through out the land, for under Me all will drink the Kool-Aid and sing the Kumbaya.  Under Me all men, all women will live in peace.  There will be peace, the peace of Islam and the joy of the jizya.  This I will demand of the world.

Upon listening to this the people turned to each other and wondered why the Anointed One didn't do any of these things when He first came into office.  They saw what He had done and shook their heads.  In a loud voice they shouted:

NOT THIS TIME!

Sphere: Related Content

The Awakening!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Book of Obama Chapter 9

All through the first year of The Anointed One the people of the land did grumble.

"You are spending too much!"
"Increasing the debt!"
"The jobs are gone, make more!"
"The banks will fail again!"
"The car companies will fail!"
"HEALTH CARE!"

And did The Anointed One listen to the people of the land?  No He did not.  For He was told by Pelosi the Loud and Reid the Inept that they can do what they want, for the people will forget.

So while all through the Summer of Discord,. while tempers ran wild, The Anointed One just plowed forward with His own New Deal.

"We will push it through Congress!" The Anointed One shouted to His staff.  "We will force this on the people."  And the Progressives did laugh.

"We will change the nation, turn it into Europe-lite.  By the time We are finished, those idiots in the street will not be able to change it back."

"For Nanny is the name of the New Welfare Plan.  Total Cradle to Grave, We will do to them as well.  I know best, that everyone can see.  My way is the Right Way.  That is what I say it will be!"

All through the summer and into the fall, the warning signs were there for all to see, but The Anointed One became blinded to the truth.

He ignored the disaster of the Olympics, how His city of Chicago was turned down.  Or when He went to campaign for Virginia and Jersey of New, He couldn't turn those races around.

He put on the tears for the victims of Fort Hood, but refused to call it terror.
He ignored the Christmas bomber, it upset His plans for golf and fun that week.
But when His friend's son received a boo-boo, He ran back as fast as He could.
He partied day and night in the warm Hawaiin sands.

But on the eve of His first year anniversary.  He has received the worst news.
The Fiefdom of the Kennedy's:  Massachusetts has left the color blue.
The Fiefdom that old Joe the Bootlegger bought for his own son.  A piece of land that was the birthplace of the progressive slant.
The land of Harvard (the school The Anointed One attended.), of Barney the Frank and Kerry the Swiftboater, plus other illustrious names.
The Fiefdom of John the Martyr and Teddy the Lecher, both of Camalot fame, did hold court.  Those names plus Tips, remained true in count.

Yet of the day before the anniversary of the anointing by John of Roberts, the Holy Chief of Justice, where He was endowed with the Mantle of Power, did the news break unto Him.  His party just lost the Fiefdom of Massachusetts, and may never get it back.

There goes the New Deal for the Nation.  The Nanny must go!  The people have turned against us.  Our seats will be given to another.  The people have spoken in Massachusetts, a Fiefdom so blue it was nearly black.  The Kennedys don't run this Fiefdom any more.  The people have taken it back!

"We are fed up with your nanny, spending and lies.  You promised us openness on C-SPAN!  You said no smoke-filled rooms, transparency.  Yet you haven't delivered these.  What we want is good government.  Lower taxes, more jobs, less waste, less debt.  We didn't get that.  We want to feel safe when we fly.  Yet we don't feel safer too.  You treat those who cause harm to us like the common criminal.  Giving them rights they are not entitled to, setting them upon our shore.

For all these reasons and more, we have chosen our new champion Brown of the Body Politic.  He is our champion.  He is our Redeemer!"

The Anointed One reeled in horror.  He was the chosen.  He wore the Mantle of Power.  He was the one they had to worship.  He would see to it that the people would have this nanny nation to live on.

But it is too late for the false Messiah He has become, His oration will fail.  For the people of the nation have awakened.  Now they will just count the days to the next election where they can correct the mistake they made in 08!

Dedicated to the late Roger W. Gardner of Radarsite.  Massachusetts was his home state!

Sphere: Related Content

Taxes to go up 10%!

By Findalis


For years I have heard of the proposal to impose a Value Added Tax (VAT) on the American people. While this sounds logical, it is fraught with many dangers.

What is a Value Added Tax?

A Value Added Tax is a consumption tax levied on value added. In contrast to sales tax, VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer; where sales tax is levied on total value at each stage, the result is a cascade (downstream taxes levied on upstream taxes). A VAT is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone who does not bear the entire cost of the tax.

Personal end-consumers of products and services cannot recover VAT on purchases, but businesses are able to recover VAT on the materials and services that they buy to make further supplies or services directly or indirectly sold to end-users. In this way, the total tax levied at each stage in the economic chain of supply is a constant fraction of the value added by a business to its products, and most of the cost of collecting the tax is borne by business, rather than by the state. VAT was invented because very high sales taxes and tariffs encourage cheating and smuggling. It has been criticized on the grounds that (like other consumption taxes) it is a regressive tax.

Under the VAT everything is taxed. Everything. There is a tax on goods and services, but also VAT on your utilities, food, entertainment (movies, shows, etc...), your mortgage or rent is taxed, your gas will be taxed, doctors visits, I believe that you get the point.

The groups that get hurt the most from a VAT are the ones who can least afford to pay it: The Poor and Middle Class.

Yet the Democrats, those champions of the downtrodden poor, are now considering this:

As lawmakers toy with the idea of an across-the-board sales tax on just about everything, tax reform advocates are starting to drum up opposition with the same fervor they employed during last month's anti-tax tea parties.

The idea of a national sales tax was once unlikely. But now that the federal government is doling out billions in stimulus spending and bailouts, and looking for billions more for health care reform, the prospect could be gaining some traction.

The frenzy over the idea kicked up after a Washington Post article Wednesday reported that Congress is starting to pay closer attention to this largely academic proposal and that the Obama administration, though shushing speculation, is soliciting advise from supporters of the idea.

"It should certainly raise alarm bells that they think they can inject it into the debate," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity.

The value-added tax, or VAT, as it is called, amounts to a tax-on-everything -- or TOE, for the acronym-inclined. It's a tax on goods that's applied in pieces throughout the chain of production and distribution and results in an increase in the cost of virtually everything you buy.

Aside from raising revenue for the government, the move could have a number of things going for it, say proponents -- it's tough to evade, it's simple by comparison to the income tax and it encourages saving.

Some conservatives have called for something similar -- the so-called Fair Tax -- that would replace the federal income tax system with a national retail sales tax.

But critics of the VAT say it would almost certainly not be implemented as a replacement for the income tax system -- rather, it would be just another tax, on top of the income tax, the state sales tax and everything else.

"This isn't a tax reform proposal that the White House is talking about. This is a new source of income for the government," said Max Pappas, public policy vice president at FreedomWorks. "The government needs big taxes and we've got big government, so now they're trying to decide how to pay for it."

Every nation that has a Value Added Tax has no Income Taxes. The VAT replaces the Income Tax. Except for the US, here it would be in addition to the Income Tax. A 10% tax hike would go into effect.

View a list of nations with a VAT here.

So much for promises of no tax hikes. Here comes the biggest tax increase in the last 60 years. Hold on to your wallets, for the US will get a Value Added Tax on top of our Income Taxes.

Sphere: Related Content

Defund HAMAS

According to YNET News, Shrub wants to spend billions training terroristst to fight terrorists. Yeah, wrong!!! As always, the training and infrastructure will be used against Israel, not against terrorists.

Internal cost estimates for the overhaul, $4.2 billion to $7 billion over five years, were compiled by US security officials and their Palestinian counterparts...

Please join me in telling Shrub where to go with this money wasting scheme.

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

---

To: U.S. Congress

For fifty seven years, we were deceived; fooled by a veil of fabulism: the false claim that "Palestinians" only wanted a state of their own. Yassir Arafat spoke to our news media in English and to his Muslim Brothers in Arabic, and to us he said "peace"; to them he said "Jihad!", and we were foolish enough to believe.

Now HAMAS has won an election and will rule the "Palestinian Authority". There is no more room for fabulism
or al-taqeyya. Let us take a clear eyed look at the HAMAS Charter.

"In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind."
From which we learn that:

• HAMAS is Islam.
  
• HAMAS is rascist.

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

From which we learn that HAMAS intent toward Israel is policide.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes."
Can you tolerate Terrorism? HAMAS is terrorism! Islam is terrorism! Why should your taxes fund it?

"As the Movement adopts Islam as its way of life, its time dimension extends back as far as the birth of the Islamic Message and of the Righteous Ancestor. Its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution. Its special dimension extends wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life; thus, it penetrates to the deepest reaches of the land and to the highest spheres of Heavens."

Is there anything wrong with HAMAS? Is there anything right with Islam?

"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)."

Is there something more we need to know about HAMAS in order to condemn it?

"Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari'a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators."

Is there any remaining doubt concerning HAMAS?

"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

Is there some good cause why our tax funds should provide the material for even one bomb with which to murder innocent Jews, among whom are American citizens residing and touring?

We, the undersigned now therefore demand that the United States Congress immediately terminate:

• all direct funding of HAMAS

• all direct and indirect funding of the "Palestinian Authority" which will now be ruled by HAMAS.

• all contributions, monitary and in goods or services to any and all U.N., charitable and non governmental organizations providing goods and or services to any and every entity under the control of or otherwise linked to the "Palestianian Authority" or to HAMAS.

• We further demand that no such funding be resumed at this time or any future period. We further demand that no negotiation be entered into with HAMAS or with the "Palestinian Authority" either directly or through third parties.

All signers of this petition are urged to send links to it to their Representatives, Senators, President Bush and their entire address book.

All signers are urged to read, sign, publicize and promote in a similar manner the following related online petitions:

• Congress Debate Koran petition, which calls for televised hearings into the doctrines and practices of Islam.

• United Nations petition, which makes a similar call upon the United Nations Security Council.

• Target: Mecca petition, which demands the designation of Mecca as our default target for immediate retaliation in the event of any further terrorist attack against us. There is no other possible deterrent!
  
  
  

  Sincerely,

  The Undersigned

View Current Signatures 165 ain't sufficient. We need some real numbers to impress the dhimmis in Washington. Please copy this post and paste it into an email. This cause deserves massive support.

Sphere: Related Content

A Solution To The IRS

I received this in my email from a Yankee. It makes sense so, here it goes.

Hi!

As the democrats think up more creative ways to spend tax payer dollars on new services without consideration for funding the existing tax payer funded services; and, as the long war on terror is not ending anytime soon; and, vets healthcare/disability payments are only going to increase for the foreseeable future it seems the only thing Congress can do is cut funding for non-essential services.

YEA RIGHT! We all know this isn't going to happen from either side of the aisle.

You all know I'm a staunch advocate for abolishing the federal income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. A form of consumption tax already exists with taxes placed exclusively on cigarettes and alcohol. In fact, the children's healthcare proposal W just vetoed would've been funded with a .61 cent tax on cigarettes. According to the left, this makes me a "radical right wing repubican," yeah, whatever. The problem with changing how our government collects money from the people doesn't soley rest with Congress. It also rests with everyone who doesn't pay income taxes. Those who pay no income or payroll tax are completely disconnected from the pain of heavy income/payroll taxes. Money comes from somewhere; but, not them.

So, as a way to increase tax revenue for our government, get healthcare to the 10,000,000 children whose parents are to negligent to get for them, provide additional funding for the long war on terrror, increase additional revenue to HELP fund ALL veterans comprehensive healthcare and increase vet disability payments; all WITHOUT losing W's tax cuts; and ingratiating the public at large with the concept of a consumption based tax I thought up the following:

I. With regard to funding children's healthcare: institute a .61 cent tax on diapers and novelty items for children (i.e. stickers, headbands, jewlery...)

II. With regard to HELP fund the long war on terror: institute a 1.5% tax on phone services (land lines, faxes, cell phones, PDAs), and a 1.5% tax on cable/satellite TV services as well as satellite radio services. Congress instituted a phone tax to pay for the Spanish War. That war lasted 4 months and the tax to pay for it lasted 108 years.

III. With regard to HELP fund ALL veterans comprehensive health care and increase vet disability payments: institute a 2% tax on pre-paid phone cards and pre-paid disposable cell phones and a 0.1 cent tax on each text message.

Would appreciate your input.

Sounds GREAT to me!!

cross-post from Snooper

Sphere: Related Content

Reprise--Taxes, Taxes, Taxes, Taxes........>>>>>>>>

This is a reprise from earlier this month.

With all the crap going on about the SCHIP, Hillary's "baby bonds", socialized health care, etc., perhaps a review is in order.

People these days are so entrenched in their BDS they don't realize GWB did have a balanced budget--so well balanced in fact, he was able to cut taxes and give the citizens of the country back some of their hard-earned disposable income.

Money the people could use as they wished, not as the government demanded.

Then a few things happened. 9/11 and Katrina. Big budget items.

The war, of course, is ongoing, and I've said it many times--the war is fiscally expensive, yes. It has been the least expensive war, bloodwise, that we've ever fought because of the technology used in saving our soldiers lives.

I'll also say this: Each and every soldier's death is a tragedy. However. Each and every soldier that gave their life, that paid the ultimate price for our freedoms, knew when they enlisted they might have to pay that price. And they still volunteered. Each and every soldier who paid that price is a hero. Every last one. Each and every soldier who has been permanently maimed in the line of duty ALSO knew when they enlisted what the price might possibly be for their enlistment and they still chose to enlist. Every last one of those soldiers is also a hero, make no mistake.

But, I don't get bent out of shape about it and I don't use it to tug emotionalism out of this war. Logical people as a whole don't because these brave men and women knew the stakes and still volunteered.

What I do get bent out of shape about is the 4,000+ ABORTIONS carried out DAILY on our home shores. Often paid for with MY TAX DOLLARS through Planned Parenthood. But, of course, the murderers on the left gloss over that. Children who had no choice, unlike our troops, but were slaughtered because they were inconvenient.

And Katrina? How about all the misappropriated funds by the Louisiana government that were supposed to be used in the clean-ups and getting things going again? Not GWB's fault, but the left would have you believe that not only did he engineer the hurricane, he engineered the looting, raping, "wilding" and misappropriation of funds as well.

And yet--even in the midst of the war costs and the Katrina debacle, he didn't raise the taxes again. He let us continue to keep our disposable income to use as WE saw fit.

As stated in a previous post today, the Republicans obviously got the hint during the 2006 elections that the country was tired of their fiscal irresponsibility and have decided to clean up their act in spending. The Democrats, however, have decided to go completely over the edge in tax and spend. And they use the "heart-string emotional tug" to do it.

SCHIP is a good one. Yes, there are many underprivileged children in this country--AND THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER SCHIP. What the Dems want is to increase SCHIP by somewhere around $35 BILLION to include children who are already covered under private healthcare and come from well-off families. NOT WHAT SCHIP WAS DESIGNED FOR MORONS.

And how about all the hidden taxes we pay? Like the Folsom Street Fair? That was outlined in a previous post as well. It's taxes that pay for the police and security. It's taxes from the hotel tax in California that pay for that travesty.

How about Ahmajerkjihadist's visit to Columbia? Yep--you got it. Taxes again that pay for the security, the set up, the lighting, the venue, all of it. And the UN? Again--our taxes pay for the police, the security of all those that hate America and come to our shores to spew their bullshit.

Of course that doesn't cover the Hillary baby bond. She wants to give every newborn $5,000. Again, previously addressed. Somewhere around $20 to $30 BILLION dollars yearly (of course covering illegals). RESPONSIBLE peoplewon't "bite" for that crap, knowing it takes way more than $5,000 to raise a child. HOWEVER, the leeches will start popping out baby after baby the rest of us will have to pay for, thereby perpetuating welfare and entitlement even more.

How about those retirement packages and raises for this fiscally irresponsible congress? What they want to vote for THEMSELVES will cost the average taxpayer another $4,400 EACH YEAR in taxes. What have they done to earn that kind of retirement and raise? What? NOTHING. If you or I performed our jobs the way this congress has performed its job, we'd be fired.

But it's all GWB's fault, huh? GWB isn't trying to run a socialistic nanny state. GWB gave us back our money to do with as WE pleased. By doing so, he injected money into the economy and brought us out of the mess Clinton put us into. Just like Reagan brought us out of Carter's mess. Funny, the Democrats just keep sinking further and further in failed policies and economic disaster and it's always a Republican that brings back economic prosperity. And the Democrats will do it again.

The general public is too wrapped up in BDS and the left's lies to see that and see it clearly. Apparently, they LIKE funding all the little projects--at their expense of course--of the Democrats like homosexual fairs, hosting tyrants, and hosting the worst excuse for a political body in the world, while funding the wholesale slaughter of innocent children every day. They ENJOY funding people who are too damned lazy to get off their porch steps when they've been warned well in advance a killer hurricane is coming and then want the government to rescue them--the ones too damned lazy to take care of themselves and the ones who want to whine when, gee willikers, the hurricane they've been warned about hits and they lose it all! So gee willikers, it's all Bush's fault so let's rob, loot, assault, rape and destroy to get back at the bastard, yeah. And then let's blame everything else on Bush because we're too stupid to be accountable for our own actions.

The general public obviously LIKES funding all the illegals coming over the borders so emergency rooms and hospitals are closing and states are going bankrupt funding them.

The general public LIKES the inefficient way the government runs things so let's let the government run our health care the way they run the post office, the IRS, the treasury department, the CIA, and all the other government agencies.

Because of the lies the Democrats revel in, the general public just can't wait to throw their money at the Democrats to raise taxes on literally everything, have the Democrats institute their communist manifesto and have the Democrats become the ultimate in the nanny state.

And these morons say the right is Orwellian? God they need an education. God help us if one of these Democratic liars becomes CIC.

********************
Received in an email from Liberty Card...

NOT a Joke: TAXES!!!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a$$ !

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax!

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License T ax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians??!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English. I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!
cross post by Snooper

Sphere: Related Content

President Bush's Saturday Radio Address-09/29/2007

Cross posted from Wake Up America.

From the White House website.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

Today I am signing emergency legislation to fund the Federal government for the next seven weeks. This legislation was necessary because Congress failed in its most basic responsibility: to pass the spending bills that fund the day-to-day operations of the government. There are 12 of these bills this year, and Congress did not complete a single one of them, so Congress had to send me a stop-gap measure before the fiscal year ends this Sunday at midnight.

Congress's failure to pass these 12 spending bills is disappointing, but I do thank the Congress for passing this temporary measure, and for passing it without any new spending, new policies or new projects. It would have been wrong to deny essential government services to the American people while Congress works through its annual spending bills.

I also appreciate the way this bill handles our disagreements over the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent. And they know I will veto it. But it is good that they kept the program running while they try to work out a more responsible approach.

Congress now has more time to complete its work on its annual spending bills. Earlier this year congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending. They have proposed spending increases that would add an extra $205 billion on top of my Administration's budget request over the next five years. There's only one way to pay for such a large spending increase, and that is to raise taxes on the American people. So it is no surprise that the same Members of Congress who are planning this big increase in Federal spending are also planning the biggest tax increase in American history.

If these members get their way, the tax relief my Administration delivered could be taken away from you. Let me explain what this would mean for an average taxpayer. If you have children, your taxes would rise by $500 for each child. If you're a family of four making $60,000 a year, your taxes would be more than $1,800 higher. If you're a single mother with two children, working to make ends meet, your taxes would go up by more than a $1,000. If you're a small business owner working to meet a payroll, your taxes would increase by almost $4,000. And if Congress allows our tax relief to expire, more than 5 million low-income Americans who currently pay no income taxes would once again have to pay taxes.

These are not the only taxes Congress wants to raise. They're proposing higher taxes on dividends and capital gains. They're proposing higher taxes on cigars and cigarettes. They're proposing to raise taxes on domestic oil and natural gas production. They're proposing new taxes on stock and bond transactions. And they refuse to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. If this tax ban expires, it would open the doors for State and local officials to impose new taxes on your access to the Internet.

At a time when many American families are dealing with rising mortgage rates, college costs, and health care expenses, it is wrong to take even more money out of your paychecks. Washington's elected leaders can do better. By working together, we can keep taxes low, help keep the economy growing, balance the Federal budget, and build on our record of fiscal discipline and greater economic opportunity for all Americans.

Thank you for listening.

END

The Democrats response shows they are not above using children for their political points. LITERALLY.

Earlier in the week, House Democrats brought children to a press conference on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Senate Democrats upped the pressure on Wednesday when they brought a priest, a nun and a rabbi as part of a "people of faith" press conference pressuring Bush to sign the $35 billion expansion of the SCHIP program.

And tomorrow, a 12-year-old boy who receives SCHIP benefits will read the weekly Democratic radio address. The boy, Graeme Frost of Baltimore, who suffered severe brain injuries in a car accident a few years ago, says he may not have survived his injuries and the follow up therapy if he hadn't been receiving the federal health benefits.

Republicans have moaned that Democrats have used children as props during this debate.

“To use an innocent young child as a human shield and misrepresent the position of the president of the United States is, frankly, beyond the pale," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "Republicans strongly support renewing SCHIP but we oppose using money meant for low-income children like Graeme Frost on adults and upper-income children who already have health insurance.”

The President will veto this and then we will have to see if both houses have enough votes to override the veto.

The SCHIP program was always meant to cover children from low income families, not children from families that can afford private healthcare. This proposal would allow those that can afford to insure their children to now enroll them in government funded healthcare which would take away from those children from families that cannot afford it.

********************

There is more, much more, regarding taxes and our fiscally irresponsible Congress.

For instance, Hillary wants to give every new baby $5,000. With an average of 4 million births per year, that comes to somewhere around $20 BILLION dollars per year. Where do you think THAT money is going to come from? Of course, this proposal was presented at the Congressional Black Caucus, making it seem--AT FIRST--as if it were for blacks only (more of her pandering to get votes, of course), when of course she means EVERY newborn. The stated purpose of this "baby bond" would be to "access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home".

What would the cost be if we figured in the illegals already here? A conservative estimate of the number of illegals is 12 million here; divide that in half (just for the sake of figuring here) for women only to 6 million. Six million illegals even having one baby with this proposal would be in the vicinity of $30 BILLION dollars coming out of your and my paychecks.

For anchor babies.

Even using the conservative figure of 6 million total (to include the illegals already here), that's an extra $30 BILLION out of the people's paychecks. You may not be able to pay for your own child's college tuition, but she's damn sure going to make sure you pay for every other child's college tuition.

********************

The Republicans APPEAR to have learned from the 2006 elections. It wasn't a change in the Iraq war people were fed up with--it was Republicans acting like Democrats. It was Republicans spending OUR money as if they had a right to go on a shopping spree at the drop of a hat.

Well, now the Republicans are doing all they can to get back to the values of fiscal conservatism. And the Democrats are PISSED.

TOO DAMN BAD. Get that veto pen warmed up, Mr. Bush. And Mitch McConnell needs to stay relentlessly on these idiots backs--pointing out to the country all the ridiculous earmarks and pork.

Sphere: Related Content

Vice-President Cheney's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation

You Tell 'Em Dick! This speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-2.html

Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation
Ritz-Carlton ChicagoChicago, Illinois
10:42 A.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:

That's quite a welcome. Well, thank you very much. Ed, I appreciate the introduction, and the opportunity to come speak with all of you today. You've chosen one of America's truly great cities for your meeting. I'm delighted to be in Chicago once again, to have the opportunity to speak about some important issues facing the country. I used to come to Chicago a lot, because our oldest daughter and her husband lived here while she went to law school at the University of Chicago, and I brought her back with me today. My daughter, Liz, is traveling with us today. (Applause.)

I've attended many Heritage events over the years. I've benefited greatly from the scholarly work that Heritage does. And one of the things I like about the Heritage Foundation is that it resides in the city of Washington, but it's not of the city of Washington. Rather, it reflects the wisdom, the traditions, and the common sense of the nation as a whole. For more than three decades, policy makers have looked to Heritage as a clear and an honest voice for the cause of freedom at home and abroad, limited government as envisioned by the Founders, and a healthy free enterprise system, and the value of personal responsibility.

The whole enterprise has been strengthened, of course, by the leadership of Dr. Ed Feulner. President Bush once observed that in Washington, presidents come and go -- except at the Heritage Foundation. (Laughter.) There's good reason for this. Ed is a man of ideas, energy, incredible talent; he's won the admiration of us all. I also want to recognize another "lifer" at Heritage, your vice president, Phil Truluck, and your trustee chairman, David Brown. It's a pleasure to be in their company once again. (Applause.)

My most recent visit to Heritage was last September, when David and Ed hosted a dinner honoring Lady Thatcher and naming the Thatcher Center. Since that time, a good many events have unfolded in the political world. The American people spoke in the mid-term elections, the 110th Congress has arrived in Washington, D.C., and for the first time since 1995 the Democratic Party now controls both the House and the Senate. It was, in retrospect, a narrow victory. A shift of only 3,600 votes would have kept the Senate in Republican hands, and a shift of fewer than 100,000 votes would have maintained Republican control of the House of Representatives.

This weekend marks the 100th day of this Congress, and it's not too soon to assess the direction in which the new majority is attempting to move the country. The Democrats, as all of us remember, came in with high expectations, many pledges to bring change, and a promise of something new. What we've seen, however, is not really that new -- in fact, it's kind of familiar to those of us who've been around a while and can remember the early 1970s.

Thirty-five years ago, the standard-bearer for the Democrats, of course, was Senator George McGovern, who campaigned on a far-left platform of heavy taxation, a greatly expanded role for government in the daily lives of Americans, and a major retreat from America's commitments in the Cold War. Senator McGovern was, and is, an honest and a straightforward man. He said what he believed and he told people where he stood. And on Election Day, Senator McGovern lost every state but one, and collected just over 3 percent of the electoral vote.

That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn. But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself. Today, on some of the most critical issues facing the country, the new Democratic majority resembles nothing so much as that old Party of the early 1970s.

On taxes, the Democratic leadership has made clear its opposition to the Bush tax cuts that have fueled this economy and helped to create nearly 8 million new jobs. The budget passed by the House assumes that all of the Bush tax reductions will be swept from the books within just a few years. The result would be a staggering tax increase on the middle class, on families and small businesses, and a return of the federal death tax from zero back up to a confiscatory 55 percent. This would constitute the largest tax increase in American history.

On the spending side of the ledger, it's enough, I think, to offer this example: Last month, in response to President Bush's request for an emergency war supplemental, the House and Senate tacked on billions of dollars to cover items on their wish list -- from fighting crickets to spinach subsidies. Even though it's still early in the session, when it comes to the appetite for tax dollars, the new Congress has already earned a place in the big-spending hall of fame.

But the Democrats' return to old patterns is most dramatic, and most consequential, in the field of national security. This will be the focus of my remarks today. In the early 1970s, the far left wing turned the Democratic Party away from the confident Cold War stance of President Truman, President Kennedy, and Senator Scoop Jackson. The result, as we know, was not merely defeat at the polls, but the beginning of a long period in which the American people largely declined to trust the Democratic Party in matters of national security. In fact, that period ended only when the Cold War itself came to an end, during the administration of former President Gerald Bush -- George Bush.

Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.

An early sign of unseriousness was the comment by Howard Dean, now the party chairman, that the capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing to make America safer. He made that statement several years ago while running for president, and a number of his fellow Democrats sharply criticized him. Yet now we hear almost daily the claim that the fight in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al-Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate. He has also said, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a vital front in that war, and it's where they have chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)

The Democratic leadership has assured us that, in any event, they support the troops in the field. They did vote to confirm General Dave Petraeus unanimously in the United States Senate -- and for good reason. General Petraeus is one of the finest military officers of his generation, an expert in counterinsurgency, a leader committed to victory, and with a strategy to achieve it.

The senators knew something else about General Petraeus. They knew he had told the Armed Services Committee that he could not do his job without reinforcements. Yet within days of his confirmation a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing those very reinforcements, thereby undermining the General's mission. Over in the House of Representatives, such a resolution actually passed on the floor. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle."

In the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67 days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request. As most Americans know by now, the House of Representatives has voted to provide the funding, but also to require that we cut the number of troops below the level that our commanders in Iraq say is necessary for victory, and further require that American forces begin withdrawing from Iraq according to a set timetable, and be gone next year regardless of circumstances on the ground.

Not before that vote had the Democrats ever managed to find enough members of the House to support a planned retreat from Iraq. So how did they manage to pass it this time? They did it by horse-trading -- by adding in all that pork-barrel spending we've heard about. And when they had the votes they needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote.

Such an outcome raises more than a little concern about the future of fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill. The implications for national security are equally obvious, and far more critical to the future of the country. An editorial by The Washington Post aptly termed the House bill an "unconditional retreat ". The legislation that passed in the Senate is no better, and that bill, also, calls for the withdrawal of American troops according to a pre-set timetable determined by members of Congress.

So this is where things stand today. The Democratic Congress has approved appropriations for a war, and attached detailed provisions for the timing and the movement of American troops. It is unacceptable, of course, from an institutional standpoint. Under the Constitution, Congress has the purse strings and the power to confirm officers. But military operations are to be directed by the President of the United States, period. (Applause.) By the wisdom of the framers, that power rests in the hands of one Commander-in-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.

I might add that we don't need 535 secretaries of state, either. (Laughter and applause.) It didn't help matters when the Speaker of the House showed up in Damascus for a sit-down with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Here again, we have an instance of the new congressional leadership making a bad move and sending mixed signals about the policies and the intentions of the United States.
It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. (Applause.)

In America, above all, the Democrats -- excuse me, in Iraq, above all, the Democrats' attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out -- wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.

This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended against it. The National Intelligence Estimate produced by the intelligence community said a rapid withdrawal would be ill-advised. Our military commanders believe a rigid timetable is not a good strategy. It does, perhaps, appeal to the folks at MoveOn.org.

Recently the National Commander of the American Legion said, "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run. It's time for the President to veto this surrender bill and for Congress to pass a serious war-funding bill, which would provide the money without the micromanagement." (Applause.) Standing here today, I can assure the American Legion, and the VFW, and all the veterans organizations, and all the men and women serving at this very hour, that the President of the United States will, indeed, veto this irresponsible legislation. (Applause.)

Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Senator Reid has threatened that if the President vetoes the timetable legislation, he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraqi operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding. Three positions in five months, on the most important foreign policy question facing our country and our troops.

Senator Reid, of course, was one of the many Democrats who voted for the use of force in Iraq. They are entitled, if they want now, to oppose this war. Yet Americans are entitled to question whether the endlessly shifting positions that he and others are taking are reflections of principle, or of partisanship and blind opposition to the President.

In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not just against the military operation in Iraq, but against its supporters, as well. I think of the case of Senator Joe Lieberman. I've known Joe since I was secretary of defense, and we debated each other when he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. I've run for office eight times in my career, and I have to say that Joe is the toughest opponent I've ever faced, and also the one I've most admired.

Joe and I see many issues differently. He's a center-left Democrat, and he has been throughout his career. Yet last year Joe was targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore himself, who famously endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help his former running mate, Joe Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't get involved in primaries. Senator Lieberman's Connecticut colleague and best friend in the Senate, Chris Dodd, campaigned against him. In a tough political fight, Joe Lieberman was abandoned simply because of his firm stand on the war -- a stand he has consistently held regardless of whether the news was good or bad, or whether snapshot polls agreed or disagreed with him.

Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman was re-elected, winning more votes than the Democratic and Republican candidates combined. The campaign against him was the political equivalent of street theater, and the voters of Connecticut showed little interest. It is tempting, I suppose, to view the current situation on Capitol Hill in the same way -- as mere posturing by a liberal element that has no chance of prevailing. But it's far more serious than that. We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences for the country.

In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? All these measures have been essential to protecting the American people against enemies who are absolutely determined to cause another 9/11, or something far worse. And it's an open question, I think, whether the current Democratic leadership would have put these protections in place.

They've even created controversy over the words we use to describe the challenges now facing America. According to news accounts, one committee in the House has decided to stop using the phrase, "Global War on Terrorism." I'm left to wonder -- which part of that phrase is the problem? Do they deny the struggle is global, after the enemy has declared the ambition of building a totalitarian empire that stretches from Europe around to Indonesia? Do they deny this is a war, in which one side will win and the other will lose? Do they deny that it's terror that we're fighting, with unlawful combatants who wear no uniform, who reject the rules of warfare, and who target the innocent for indiscriminate slaughter?

That's the nature of the fight we're in. We can't wish it away, or define it away. In Iraq, while extremists are trying to stir an endless cycle of violence, where al Qaeda is operating and trying to open new fronts, where an elected government is going about the hard work of political reconciliation, the United States has interests at stake, and promises to keep.

The ultimate solution in that country will be a political solution, but reconciliation cannot be reached in an atmosphere of violence and instability. So we are there, alongside Iraqi forces, to bring security to Baghdad. Together our forces have carried out thousands of patrols. We have set up joint security stations and combat posts in the capital city, we've seized hundreds of weapons caches, found and cleared hundreds of improvised explosive devices, detained suspected killers and bomb makers, and found and destroyed car bomb factories.
Our new strategy in Iraq is still in its early stages of implementation. Roughly half of the reinforcements have arrived, and as General Petraeus has said , it'll be a while before we can fully assess how well it's working. But there's one thing the American people already know: The men and women we've sent to carry out this mission are brave and decent. They and their families represent the best in the American character, and we are proud of each and every one of them. (Applause.)

The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home. They can never be sure what the next day will bring. But they're giving it all they have, and we owe them the same. Both political parties, both elected branches, both houses of Congress need to unite and back up our military 100 percent, leaving no uncertainty about whether this country supports them and what they're doing. (Applause.) They deserve this support so they can finish the job and get it done right, and return home to an America made safer by their courage.

The United States is keeping its commitments, and persevering despite difficulty, because we understand the consequences of getting out before the job is done. History provides its own lessons, and none perhaps is better than the example of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During those years, Afghanistan was a major front in the Cold War. The strategic significance was clear to all, and the United States was heavily engaged in the area, supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviets. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, everybody walked away from Afghanistan. From that point on, extremist factions began to vie for power. Civil war broke out. By the end of the 1990s, the Taliban had an iron grip on the country, and was hosting Osama bin Laden and the training camps for terrorists that led directly to the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now, withdrawing coalition forces before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed. Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam Hussein regime.

As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies could recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and they could underwrite their own designs, including against our friends in the region. If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime in Teheran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced, and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our efforts in the war on terror, and to our interests in the broader Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments, in what the terrorist Zawahiri has called a "jihad wave." Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And what would it say to leaders like President Karzai in Afghanistan and President Musharraf in Pakistan, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Critics enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our Coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)

This nation has chosen a better course. Instead of allowing problems to simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment. We believe, and we know, that free institutions and human liberty provide the best long-term hope of progress for nations, and peace for the world.

The course we have chosen is not an easy one for America. But it will be far easier on the conscience of America when we see it through, sparing millions from suffering, and leaving behind a free and democratic Iraq. Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early '70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever.

Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. (Applause.) This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. At this hour in our history, it is the cause of America -- and the best among us are fighting and sacrificing for its success. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome is not in doubt. We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.

Thank you very much.

END 11:13 A.M. CDT

Sphere: Related Content