FREE REDBOX RENTALS

Every Sunday in December (and the first Sunday in January), you can get a free rental from Redbox locations inside of Walmart stores. All you need to do is use the code specific to the Sunday you are renting on.
The codes are:

12/07/08 - 11MOMS4US
12/14/08 - 11MOMS4UA
12/21/08 - 11MOMS4UN
12/28/08 - 11MOMS4UT
01/04/09 - 11MOMS4UA

Notice the end of the code spells out "SANTA" across all 5 weeks. So, enjoy the codes courtesy of Redbox, Walmart, and the Eleven Moms.

And remember, these codes only work at Walmart locations on the Sunday specified

Clinton? Is this Obamas idea of change?

From Gloria Borger, Jessica Yellin and Sam Feist
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has spoken with two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination about the secretary of state position in his administration, sources told CNN on Friday.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a candidate for Obama's secretary of state, sources say.

Obama spoke with Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Friday about the key Cabinet post, multiple Democratic sources said.

Over the course of the past 24 hours, sources close to Clinton have softened their one-time solid public position that she would not be interested in a Cabinet position. Those sources now say she is clearly contemplating how she can serve the Obama administration.

Clinton traveled to Chicago, Illinois, on Thursday to meet with Obama, sources said, and the two had a "serious discussion" about the issue.

Clinton's response to Obama's overture is unknown, but sources said the New York senator left the meeting with the impression that if she were interested in the post, it would be hers. Watch more on the speculation surrounding Clinton »

Under these circumstances, one source said, a president-elect does not meet with potential Cabinet secretaries unless he is serious about making an offer.

Obama has had "great interest" in asking Clinton to be secretary of state "for a while," another source close to the Obama transition team said. iReport.com: Whom should Obama pick?

"You've got to assume that Hillary Clinton did not come to visit the city of Chicago," the source said.

Should Clinton take the position, the transition team and the senator would have to work out how her husband, former President Clinton, would continue his work with the Clinton Global Initiative without complicating her work as secretary of state, another source close to the Obama transition team said.

"I am happy being a senator from New York. I love this state and this city," Clinton said Monday in response to a reporter's question. "I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner, and I want to do everything I can to make sure [Obama's] agenda is going to be successful." Watch whether Clinton would join Obama's team »

On Friday, Obama spoke with Richardson about the position, a senior Democratic source said. The source said Richardson has always been on Obama's list of possibilities for the key Cabinet position.

Richardson also traveled to Chicago to meet with Obama, according to a source who said the idea of Clinton as secretary of state is "not a done deal."

Richardson withdrew from the race for the Democratic nomination January 10 and later endorsed Obama.

Clinton battled on until June, eventually throwing her support to Obama as well.

A source close to transition team said Obama is trying to build a diverse Cabinet that includes women and minorities and that works as a team.

Obama campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs is widely expected to be named White House press secretary, and chief strategist David Axelrod is expected to be picked as a White House senior adviser.

Also Friday, the Obama transition team announced that the Illinois senator will meet with the man he defeated in the general election, Republican Sen. John McCain, on Monday.

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.


I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.


When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"


But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.


Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr.

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

Today at 7:38pm

October 27, 2008 (American Thinker)
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

* Go to website for tax charts!*

one of the best analogies I’ve ever seen to explain the downfall of Socialist taxation policies.

The Parable of 10 Men in a Bar

from: http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/the-parable-of-10-men-in-a-bar/

Not a Bible parable, obviously, but one of the best analogies I've ever seen to explain the downfall of Socialist taxation policies.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works!!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Found on Internet, here's what Snopes has to say about the authorship.  Regardless of who wrote it, it explains the concepts very well.]

"Spreading the wealth around" never results in a better outcome for people.  It always results in destruction.  Case study: Zimbabwe.

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 14:6

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• HTTP/1.1 Pipelining
• Quote of the Day
• Timeline of Ronald Reagan's Life

This entry was posted on October 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1. Isolden Says:
   October 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm

   I heard this first on Rush's show and thought it a very appropriate analogy. Wish more ppl knew about it - pass it on -

2. ozarksky Says:
   October 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm

   This is great!!! It's so simple…yet BHO just doesn't get it. Or…perhaps he does…get us all drunk (for free) and have his way with us. Count me out!!

3. sweetakin Says:
   October 23, 2008 at 11:20 am

   While sitting at our coffee table with my 8th grader studying for an upcoming test, political news was on the t.v. in the background. My son was observing the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" and asked why people (media) were bashing him for asking a question. After my explanation, my son remarked, "Mom, that would be like me making 100 on my test, a classmate making a 25, my teacher taking points away from me, and giving them to the other student all so that our grades would be equal. But then we'd both fail."

   I replied, "Yes, but maybe that would be fair." To which he replied, "Or maybe he/she didn't study, or better yet, didn't even care to study because he/she knew they would get some of my points. In that case, why should I study?" To which I replied, "Bingo son, you get it."

   P.S. Bless you for the "shout out" on MM! You're terrific! I understand that this time of year she would be inundated with trolls, so I will continue to read and learn.

4. itooktheredpill Says:
   October 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm

   sweetakin,
   Your son is wise! You have taught your children well.

   Thank you for your kind words.

   Sincerely,
   Red Pill.

wooops

wooops
Originally uploaded by jimshitz010010010010000101

Proof that Obama's camp faked his birth certificate

Uploaded by jimshitz010010010010000101 on 16 Oct 08, 12.18PM PDT.

Obama Citizenship??? Why should we trust him??

Why should someone tell me where my money goes???

An editorial by Paul Marx, Owner of radio station KBON 101.1FM

I was brought up believing that the United States of America was the
country that gave anyone the opportunity to be as successful as one
can achieve, but now it seems that many people believe that if you
become too successful you should be "punished"; if you make "too
much" money with your success some of that money should be taken away
from you and "shared" with those less fortunate, but aren't we are
already sharing?

Aren't the so called "less fortunate" in this country already being
taken care of? After all they get Federal housing, Food stamps,
medical cards and God knows what else. How much more should we give
them?? We have become a country filled with too many people who want
something for nothing. Do we just keep giving and giving to those who
contribute the least to the country? Shouldn't there instead be some
sort of plan to reward those who contribute to the country or at
least let those who earn success, enjoy it?

Why is it always so popular for a politician or political candidate
to talk about "more taxes" on the rich? Why can't people understand
that in most cases it is those so called "rich people" that own
businesses and create jobs. They are people who in many cases
started at the bottom and worked their way up, many taking a gamble
by investing their life savings into a business or idea. So, they
invest, build their business with hard work, hire people to work for
them and see some well earned success, then we punish them. That's
right folks, while the word "tax" is being used it's not
really "taxing" those people who earned success, it is punishing
those people. Is it fair that we take from these people
to "distribute the wealth"? Distribute to who??

I don't want the government to take money that I have worked hard for
and give it to someone who most likely does not contribute to this
country. I am fed up with driving down the streets at mid-day and
seeing people sitting outside smoking, drinking and playing cards
under a tree while I have to worry about my business; how the downed
economy will affect it. I am tired of going into a store all times of
the day and seeing people buying expensive steaks with food stamps
but having the cash to buy cartoons of cigarettes, bottles of wine or
whiskey and cases of beer. I am tired of driving by bars during work
hours and seeing the same cars there day after day. These are some of
the very people Presidential candidate Barak Obama wants to "spread
the wealth" to.

Anyway don't financially successful people spread the wealth on
their own by spending more money? I would think that they probably
buy bigger, more expensive homes, more expensive furniture, more
expensive automobiles, send their kids to college, etc. In other
words, besides creating jobs for other people who WANT to work, they
help the economy by spending that money that they have earned.
I agree with this "post" I found on a discussion board: "It is not
the governments job to determine who makes" too much" money, only to
make fair rules for all to follow. The smart and motivated will
succeed, the lazy will not".
To Quote "Joe the Plumber": "That's the American Dream to me. You
work hard. You're going to get what you want eventually. It's not
going to happen overnight by no means, but if you work hard enough
you will get it. I resent the government or Obama's plan to take more
away from me." -- (Joe Wurzelbacher, October 12, 2008).

As "Joe" told Diane Sawyer recently: "Americans should get treated
equally. Why do we have escalating tax brackets on higher incomes at
all? Why are we penalizing the success that we proclaim as the
American Dream"?

A writing by Peter Ferrara titled "Federal Income Taxes: Who Pays and
How Much" states: "Facts are that the top 1% of income earners are
paying 40% of federal income taxes, almost twice their share of
income, so the rich certainly seem to be paying their fair share, and
then some. Liberal politicians who say we need to raise taxes on the
rich so they will pay their fair share are either abusively
misleading the public or hopelessly ignorant regarding federal tax
policy. If 40% is not fair for the top 1%, what would be fair, 50%,
100%? Secondly, liberal politicians wailing about Republican tax cuts
for the rich are also either misleading the public, or hopelessly
uninformed. With the top 1% now paying 40% of income taxes, the top
5% paying 60%, and the top 40% paying 99.4%, where are the tax cuts
for rich? Clearly, federal income taxes are overwhelmingly paid by
upper income earners".

In my opinion, Barack Obama's political strategy seems to be more
welfare and give-away programs at the expense of not only who he
considers to be "rich", but also at the expense of the hard working
middle class Americans (Even though many of them may not realize that
yet); taking from them and giving to those who contribute the least
to this country.
It's very sad but it seems that America is becoming a nation of more
& more people with their hands out for charity & freebies, and I have
to give Barack Obama this. He's smart enough to realize that
promising to give more of "something for nothing" to these people
will get him millions of votes.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This election, maybe more than ever, it is very
important that you THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE and put AMERICA FIRST!

Thank you,

PAUL MARX
Owner/KBON 11.1FM
www.kbon.com

P.S. One more thing. Ask yourself, who would you have voted for if
this election had been right after 9/11? In your honest opinion who
do you think would have best acted on America's behalf?