A Patriot From Chowan

Hidden Tax OnThe Middle Class Hidden In The Social Security/ Unemployment Extension Bill

billmoore353 — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:31:10 +0000

No one to this point is making a big deal over a tax put into the Unemployment/ Social Security Extension Bill. What is currently being proposed is really a major tax on any middle class person buying or refinancing a home/condo starting in 2012.

According to the bill, there will be a surcharge ( tax) put on any loans for the purpose of refinancing or purchasing. The example offered is on a $200,000 loan. The mortgage payment would go up $17.00 a month. The rate increases the more you borrow.

So as I understand, a middle class person/couple who saved to purchase a home may not qualify for the loan based on the increased mortgage payments. Why should they pay more to fund government’s insatiable appetite for money and spending.

When does government realize it is not a revenue problem but a spending one.

2012 elections are fast approaching!!!

Let’s Not Repeat The Mistakes In The 1960 Presidential Election

billmoore353 — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:08:48 +0000

My biggest fear for the Election in 2012 is we repeat the mistakes of 1960 Presidential Election. Many of you were too young to remember or were not even born a that time.

In 1960 the Democrats ran Senator John F. Kennedy (JFK) against the incumbent Vice President, Richard Nixon, a Republican. For the first time the debate was covered both on national television and on the radio.

JFK was a young good-looking, charming candidate who was an excellent speaker. Nixon was older and did not have a pleasant look about him . Many later said the make up artists did not do him any favors.

What was most interesting was how the electorate reacted to the debate. What became evident was the electorate was divided as to who won. That division was directly tied to the medium from which they heard the debate.

If you watched the debate on television, you were convinced JFK won the debate hands down. Radio listeners felt the exact opposite. Without the ability to see the debaters, they could only go by the substance of the responses. They all felt Nixon won the debate on substance.

This year we have the possibility of History repeating itself. President Obama is charming, good-looking, relatively young, and an extremely effective speaker. Should Speaker Gingrich win the nomination, he will be extremely knowledgable and an excellent debater, but will not present himself in a most positive way. His looks and mannerisms must be curtailed if he is to win. Governor Romney is knowledgable but comes across in a debate as stiff. Governor Perry also with a high success rate as a governor has not proved himself in debate forums.The other candidates are not in serious contention.

In order for the Republican candidate to win in 2012, he must be highly aware of his appearance and mannerisms. Another option is to convince the voters to listen to the Presidential Debates rather than to watch them.

2012 is coming!!!!

An Open Letter to Congressman Butterfield

billmoore353 — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:56:33 +0000

An Open Letter to Congressman Butterfield

As a person living in your District for a number of years I am perplexed by the recent stances you have taken. On a state level you recently asked us to write our State Representatives and challenge some of the items they are planning to try and pass or to override a governor’s veto. For example, The Republicans in the State want to put a cap on the state gasoline tax. It would seem to me you would want to help all the people you represent and stopping additional gas tax increases help everyone especially the poor.

You want us to stop the plan to consider off shore drilling for NC. It is not a guarantee but an exploration to see if it could be done safely with minimal risks to the environment. This is not deep water drilling as done in the Gulf. Many coastal states have found a way to balance drilling, tourism on their beaches, and protection of the environment. In addition, such an action would create many new and long term jobs, something many of the people you represent need.

The one item you ask us to fight is most puzzling to me. It is the desire for all voters to show some sort of Government ID before they vote. Voting is one of the most sacred rights in a Democracy. I would think you would support any step that cuts down on voter fraud. Yet you claim that such a requirement would cost one half million people their right to vote. I do not understand why. If it does not already do so, the state could offer a government ID. It would be handy to cash checks for anyone that does not a drivers license. What I really do not understand is the fact as a North Carolina citizen I must use my government identification on a regular basis to conduct business. To cash I check, I must show ID. If I am stopped by an officer of the law I must produce an ID. If I witness something that requires a report by officials, they ask for an ID. If I board a plane, I must show a Government ID. If I apply for a loan they ask for ID. Yet you find it an issue to require people to prove they are who they are when they vote. I do not understand why.

It appears to me the above items would benefit the people you represent and I do not understand you opposition to additional job creation, stopping taxes from going up on everyone and protecting the sanctity of one of our basic rights, the right to vote.

Bill Moore

Old Joke New Use- Democrats and Taxing

billmoore353 — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:08 +0000

Modifying an old joke does illustrate the Democratic stand on taxes.

In response to Governor Perry’s new proposed tax plan where filing could fit on a postcard, the Democrats have come out with a new simplified tax plan.

Line 1– How much did you make?

Line 2- Send it in

Unfortunately this joke remains true as long as the Democrats in Congress believe that it is their money not ours and they are letting us keep some.

2012 is coming

A New Word Proposed for Websters Dictionary

billmoore353 — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:44:43 +0000

A contributor to my blog, Steve Cherry, shares this proposed addition to Websters Dictionary

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least
capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Thanks to Joe Smith for providing this new word for our use.

Ready for a change? 2012 is coming!!!!

Guest Article on Obama’s Election and Explanation As To Why

billmoore353 — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:00:27 +0000

Gloria Willis, a friend and Tea Party member, shared this article with me from a columnist at the Washington Post. It is worth Reading. It deals with the election of 2008 and an explanation of why we are where we are. It is thought provoking.

The Washington Post

August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President

By: Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of BarackObama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: How on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT

billmoore353 — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:26:01 +0000

Shared with me by a friend Les Kersey

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT* THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘s true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as “partnering.”

Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years; made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett
*
*

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for

good men do nothing.. It’s happening right now.

The CHANGE is here!! 90% of Americans will forward this. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

2012 is coming!!!

A Double Standard for Fund Raising?

billmoore353 — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:30:32 +0000

The Liberal Press is having a field day speculating on the Cain – Gingrich Debate in Texas Saturday. Some are questioning if there was a charge to attend the debate. They speculate the cost might be as high as $1,000.00 a ticket. Others are asking if either candidate was being paid to be there. Still others questioning if they are splitting the gate. All are shocked the candidates would take money or charge money for the debate.

It seems to me President Obama has been making policy speeches throughout the United States and at some of them the cost to attend the speech/ fundraiser was up to $38,000.00 a person. The United States taxpayer is funding the costs of these speech/ fundraisers. Exactly who do you think pays to for Air Force One and the Increased Agents needed to protect the President on the road.

However, the Press does not seem to have any issue with these events that raise millions for the Presidents Re-Election Campaign.

Equal Treatment or a Double Standard?

You Decide!!!

2012 is coming!!!!

The Press And Its Unequal Treatment Of Conservatives

billmoore353 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:10:33 +0000

The mainstream media continue to operate with two standards. if you are a Liberal, you can skate on a great deal. If you are a Conservative, you are held to the highest standards. If you are both a Conservative and a Minority, you are a target for total destruction. Let us look at the facts.

A Hispanic that is a conservative might take away part of the Hispanic voting block. Hence Marco Rubeo was attacked for very minor things about his parents immigration to America.
If you are an Afro-American, yo might also siphon off votes from that block that is both Democratic and largely ignored by the same people. Look at the vicious attacks on both Herman Cain and even Justice Thomas. Attacks based on hearsay not facts

Let us look at the other side.

If you are Liberal and a Congressman, then Sexual activities are not a real issue outside of Congress. Look at the time it took to drag the Mainstream Press to report on Congressman Weiner’s activities
IF you are President or running for the position and a Liberal, then you do not need to :

Show grades from Colleges and Universities
Explain in detail why you and your wife surrendered you law Licenses
Explain your friendships with radicals seeking to overthrow the government
Explain why you are qualified for the position never holding a leadership position of any kind
Explain how you can sit in a church for 20 years and never hear your preacher say any anti – American statements

Sounds a little bias Sounds to me

You decide!!!

2012 is coming!!!!!

When Is It Racist? – Thought For The Day

billmoore353 — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:50:37 +0000

Consider this;

It is acceptable by the Left to comment negatively on Herman Cain. However, when the Right says anything about Barrack Obama they are called Racist!! Hardly seems fair and equitable

You Decide

2012 is coming !!!!!