Tag Archives: Scott Brown

Olympic Medal Winners Face a Tax Hit

In his third Olympic Performance, Michael Phelps won a total of six medals: four gold and two silver. His performances in the thirtieth Olympiad is sure to bring big financial awards, but his performances are also going to cost him.

Every American who won a medal in the London Olympics will receive cash rewards from the U.S Olympic Committee. Each gold medal winner will receive $25,000, each silver medal winner will receive $15,000 and each bronze medal winner will receive $10,000 respectively. This means when Michael Phelps returns to the states, he will be collecting a healthy $130,000 from the USOC.

Phelps with his record breaking 19th Olympic Medal

However, Phelps will also be taxed for each medal he received. For each gold medal, Phelps will have to pay the IRS approximately $9,000, for each gold, $5,400 for each silver, and if he would have earned a bronze, $3,500.

Soon after stories surfaced about U.S. Olympic athletes facing deep financial hardship, some Washington politicians have offered and supported a bill that would offer the athletes a reprieve.

Republican law makers led by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown introduced a bill named Olympic Tax Exemption Act last week. The bill has already gained the support of President Barack Obama.

“Our young athletes endure years of grueling training and make enormous sacrifices so they can represent our country on the national stage and make us proud. Our thanks should not come in the form of a giant tax bill from the IRS.” Brown said when asked about the bill.

Follow Me on Twitter @chrisenloe.

Scott Brown Needs You

Lest we forget, Scott Brown is still running against Elizabeth Warren – she-with-the-questionable-native-family-roots. Thanks to an agreement to exclude SuperPAC ads in this campaign, the wolves are being held salivating at the gates on this one. So what does this mean? Scott Brown needs you!

Of course, ABC decided to pontificate on the pros and cons of a SuperPAC-free campaign. Personally, I see it as an opportunity to place real issues center-stage. Special interest groups tend to focus on their own little corners of the political world, and spend their money accordingly. Brown can control the narrative of his campaign, and has a relatively free hand to prevent it from degenerating into a pissing contest centered on Warren’s collective nonsense.

There was much screaming from the left over the Citizens United ruling that allowed the rise of the SuperPAC in the first place. And even though it hasn’t been that long, the GOP seems to have become far too dependent on corporate participation in campaigns. The Brown campaign offers us the opportunity to show everyone once and for all that we can still win without the help of the big bucks and special interest advertising. This can be an ideological campaign, and it can win on the merit of what Brown wants to do for Massachusetts.

That is how you win a campaign on conservative values, pure and simple. But, in order to do this, he needs money to get that message to his constituents. No SuperPAC advertising means that everything is on the Brown campaign. And while out-of-state organizations may not participate in this campaign, out-of-state individuals may contribute (within the limits permitted, of course.) So….

Please Contribute to Scott Brown 2012

On a personal note, I used to write for a liberal editor from Massachusetts. We still keep in touch from time to time. Please, don’t give him the opportunity to pick on me about Scott Brown losing in November!! I really don’t like it when the few liberal friends I still have can do that sort of thing! Thanks!

MA Senate Race

brown warren

Visiting Boston this morning gave me a chance to watch local news. For the most part it’s the same as home but I did see a couple ads for the Senate candidates. One focuses on the positive attributes of the person, in particular how the candidate approaches women’s issues. The other chooses to play the blame game in an attempt to associate the opponent with ‘the establishment.’ Which works better–Positive or Negative?

What do you think?

Letter To Senators Regarding SB 679

Sen. Coburn, Sen. Inhofe,                                                                            May 9, 2011

I am writing about S.679, introduced by Charles Schumer on March 30, 2011 and co-sponsored by 15 other senators, including the Republican leader and six other Republican senators.  This is another case of the Chavezization of the United States of America.  Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution the way they did for a reason.  They didn’t want this nation to become a third world banana dictatorship.  These great men of thought and courage wrote the Constitution to give us a system of checks and balances to prevent one person or a small group of people from taking absolute control of our nation.

With the passage of this piece of dictatorial legislation, Congress will essentially vote themselves, and We the People into a state of irrelevancy.  We already have too many czars who owe their allegiance to Obama rather than to the Constitution as designed.  But it isn’t only Obama I am concerned about.  I don’t want any president to have this much unchecked authority to do as he wishes without any congressional approval.

It may be easy for you to just pass this off as a “streamlining of the system”, but to me and many other American citizens it is not streamlining, it is abrogating the duties you swore to perform when you were elected to Congress.  The background checks and investigations are supposed to prevent tax cheats and radicals from gaining important posts in our government.  Look what we have in charge of our government now.  A Treasury Secretary who evaded hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes because he misunderstood the tax codes (?), a member of the House of Representatives who evaded hundreds of thousands of dollars because he misunderstood the tax codes (?), radicals in Cabinet positions who seek to destroy this nation by preventing us from gaining energy independence, other radicals who are printing money like it will actually be worth something.  While Ben Bernanke is screwing the Chinese with his monetary policies he is also screwing the American citizens, but that is the point isn’t it?

Now we also have another agency telling a company it can’t move from a closed shop state to a right to work state?  Since when does the federal government have the right to tell any company where they can and can’t do business?  Isn’t dictating where they can or can’t operate a dictatorship?  Isn’t this what Adolf Hitler did? How about Hugo Chavez?  Is this what you call a free market system?  Or is this what we are becoming, a socialist state run by government fiat?

Charles Schumer certainly isn’t doing this for any improvement in our government, or in the growth of American exceptionalism, strength, and freedom.  He is one of the most radical communistic people in Washington and believes in the subjugation of the American people.   If you look at Schumer’s record you find nothing but dictatorial policies.  He wants absolute gun control, open borders, murder on demand against unborn children, and total government control of every aspect of the lives of the citizens of America, just to name a few.  Schumer is one who would give us a Hugo Chavez type of America.  This is not what the founding fathers designed and it is not what the American people desire.

Anyone who supports this legislation is not doing so for the betterment of a free society.  If you are willing to ride in the back of the Obama bus and take what crumbs he doles out that is fine but resign from office first and allow We the People to elect people with the courage it takes to govern a nation as great as America.

The co-sponsors:

Lamar Alexander

Scott Brown, what a surprise!!

Susan Collins, what a surprise!!

Jeff Bingaman

Richard Blumenthal

Thomas Carper

Dick Durbin, of course

Mike Johans

John Kyle, can you spell RINO?

Joe Lieberman

Richard Lugar

Mitch McConnell, Republican senate leader would sell our freedom? Of course!!

Jack Reed

Harry Reid, no surprise here

Sheldon Whitehouse

These are 15 senators who would sell the freedom of American citizens, and for what?  What do they have to gain by destroying the Constitution?  How many more are going to join in this travesty to destroy America?  As my senators I certainly hope you will not be a part of this.  We have already seen the freedom of American citizens, We the People, taken by Marxists who desire no more than to subjugate the American people for their own power, prestige, and wealth.

This cannot be allowed to stand.  The American people are standing up in record numbers to say NO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What is it going to take for Congress to listen to the people?  I am certain that you hear our voices.  Is it that Congress doesn’t care or is it that Congress thinks we don’t matter?  It must be one or the other because the voices of the people are being ignored.

This legislation gives any president unlimited power and finishes the destruction of our republic.  This will not be allowed to stand.  I understand the Democrat Party doing this.  It has been their goal for quite some time to destroy America and turn it into their fiefdom, but for Republicans to dance right along to the tune of radical Marxist dictators is disturbing and frightening.  It is time for the rank and file of the Republican Party in the senate to revolt and put a stop to this abrogation of duty by Mitch McConnell.   He has consistently lied to the American people and has shown he does not have the courage or ability to stand for the rights of We the People and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.  He would rather ride in the back of Obama’s bus than stand for freedom.  He either does not have the courage of his convictions, or has no convictions at all.  I tend to believe the latter is the case.

It is time for the freedom loving members of the Senate to act.  If you cannot remove Mitch McConnell from leadership and replace him with someone of character, courage, and integrity then resign your positions and we will find American citizens who will actually uphold the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  We the People have had enough of this.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

 

In God We Trust,

Bob Russell
Claremore, Ok.

 

 

Progressive Senators Gang Up on Rand Paul to Allow EPA to Apply Cap and Trade by Fiat

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky submitted a resolution in the U.S. Senate on Thursday which would have stopped the EPA ( as in Extreme Political Activists) from enforcing the very same cap and trade laws that were previously voted down in Congress. The EPA regulations Senator Paul was trying to block is just the latest one titled, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.(CSAPR) This new rule will become the law of the land on Jan. 1st, 2012 for the main category of mandated pollution regulations, and May 1st, 2012 for the remaining categories, as you can see in the EPA above link.

Not only did all Senate Democrats vote this resolution down, but the progressive puppets of the Republican party also joined in to allow the EPA to ignore our Congress and pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat. The vote failed by a tally of 56-41, with Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; Scott Brown of Massachusetts; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine; Mark Kirk of Illinois; and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee all voted against Paul’s resolution. If your Senator is on this list, give them a call and ask them just why they chose to allow the EPA to bypass Congress and once again illegally pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat?

Whether you agree with the new regulations or not, the U.S. Constitution declares that it is Congress, and only Congress, who is authorized to pass laws onto the people. Check out How a bill become law. In it we see the following facts:

Under the chairmanship of George Washington, the Constitutional Convention established a strong federal government in 1871. Lawmaking powers were vested in a national congress.

Article I of the Constitution gave “all legislative powers” to Congress, and specified that laws could originate either in the House or the Senate. The only exception was revenue bills, which had to originate in the House. ( emphasis mine)

The conservative grassroots movement that elected the likes of Scott Brown and Kelly Ayotte to the U.S. Senate in the 2010 elections apparently did not help to get conservatives into office, but instead elected Progressive Republicans – a great example of how politicians will say anything to get elected today, and when they get a whiff of power, they turn their backs on the very people whom elected them. Brown and Ayotte campaigned on a platform of government that obeys the U.S. Constitution, yet they vote to allow the EPA to trample that very same constitutional law that says only Congress will pass laws in this country.

The new Cross-State Air Pollution law that will be forced onto Americans in 2012, resulting in Barack Obama’s promised “skyrocketing electricity prices” surely must apply to every state in the country right? It is based on air pollution blowing across state lines, so it must apply to all states. Not quite, as the following map shows us. Is your state on that map?

When looking at the above map of states whom will see skyrocketing electricity prices next year, we must use common sense in asking two very simple questions:

First, why isn’t the smog capital of the United States being put under these new illegal cap and trade laws? That’s right,the Liberal Obama-supporting state of California isn’t getting slapped with these new pollution regulations. Are we so ignorant as to not see the problem with that fact here today? The new laws are based on pollution blowing from one state to another. Does the EPA expect us to believe that California’s world famous smog will stay in California and somehow not blow into, say Arizona?

Secondly, what about Mexico’s pollution blowing into Texas? Are the wizards of the EPA telling us that they can control that too?

Lastly, let’s move on to the blatant false propaganda that the EPA website contains about the massive costs to the American people that this law will create. Senator Paul’s above-linked informative site says this:

These new regulations will cost over $2 billion and over a course of a decade or more may well exceed $100 billion. We add these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations already on the books.

To which the EPA tries to deny with false and very impossible-to-prove statistics about supposed savings in healthcare that will result form the CSAPR in the following chart:

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provides cleaner air and healthier lives for millions of Americans

“Estimated Annual Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the Proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

Health Effect Number of Cases Avoided Premature mortality 13,000 to 34,000 ( between 13k and 34k? Talk about guesswork there)    Non-fatal heart attacks15,000     Hospital and emergency department visits19,000    Acute bronchitis19,000    Upper and lower respiratory symptoms420,000    Aggravated asthma400,000    Days when people miss work or school1.8 million (yes, I took the liberty to correct the spelling mistakes the geniuses of the EPA have on their info-site)

So, we are being led to believe that this new EPA law will save between 13,000 and 34,00 lives by 2014, simply by supposedly regulating state to state air pollution.  What happens if a hurricane blows into the U.S from South America and brings all that pollution with it from countries who basically have no pollution laws? What happens to those false numbers then? What happens if the Gulf of Mexico winds blow all of their pollution into Texas for say, 10 straight months? How many lives will this farce of a stealth cap and trade law save then? Yes , as we see right here, the CSAPR is all built upon one massive cap and trade lie, period. There are no concrete, proven savings that can be counted from this scam. The one thing that all Americans that live in the EPA cherry-picked states that this new law applies to next year can count on is fewer jobs and skyrocketing electricity prices. Look at the bright side, there’s one promise Obama has kept.  

Get ready folks, the man who says he will not tax the middle class and poor just did just that, and it is coming in two short months in the form of skyrocketing electricity costs, thanks to the U.S. Senate Progressives of both parties allowing the EPA to pass this cap and trade law illegally.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough !

 

Pick-Up Truck to Blame for Coakley Loss

Democrat-hated TruckCommentators and pundits are trying to figure out just why Coakley lost.  The White House press secretary thinks it’s Bush’s fault, Coakley’s lead pollster blames the White House, and the rest of the liberal leadership … hates Scott Brown’s truck.

John Kerry said, “I’ve got news for you, Scott: George Bush drove a truck, too, and look where it got us”.  Coakley said that it didn’t matter that Brown drove a truck because he was going in the wrong direction.  Obama decided to attack Scott’s mode of transportation by telling us all to “forget the truck” and “everybody can buy a truck”.

Hearing all of this truck-bashing seriously reminded me of the Southwest Airlines commercial when they ask, “why do they hate your bags so much”. So Mr. President, why do you hate our trucks so much? Are you too good to ride in a truck? Are people that drive trucks stupid or unworthy? Are we the less-equal animals in Orwell’s book?

It’s obvious that Obama has no concern for the common citizen, because we’re… common.  We don’t eat arugula regularly (or at all), have lobster at every meal or play golf while our responsibilities are being ignored.  Instead we might drive trucks, because putting mulch in a sedan isn’t effective, and just try putting a sheet of plywood on your econo-scooter.  Then again, we are the same ones that cling to our bibles and guns.  Somehow having religion and legally owning a firearm also knocks us down on the animal equality meter.

In a post on nationalreview.com, Mark Steyn also sees a growing hatred of trucks in our country:

America is becoming a bilingual society, divided between those who think a pickup is a rugged vehicle useful for transporting heavy-duty items from A to B and those who think a pickup is coded racism.

I drive a pickup and it has over 100,000 miles on it.  I have a bible and … guns.  The Democrats problem is that they are the only ones offended by these facts.  They are certainly the only ones that would look down their elitist noses at someone with  an 8 year old truck.  Clearly I drive it because I can’t afford to buy a new shiny BMW every three years – or perhaps, because I don’t want to.  If someone else likes the new car smell so much they discard a perfectly useful vehicle and don’t mind being constantly in debt, so be it.  It’s their choice and it doesn’t affect me at all.  I like not having had a car payment in recent history.  I hope I get 250,000 miles out of this truck and I hope it irritates the crap out of the President.

If you listen to Obama, Brown got elected because we’re all still mad at Bush.  I’ll pile that one on to truck-hatred and bible/gun bashing. Coakley lost because she was inept and decided to support Obama’s failed policies.  The failed policies of the current administration.  She lost because she decided to speak for Kurt Schilling (and not correctly), couldn’t spell her own state, and … hates trucks.  She lost because she is out of touch with America – and so goes the Democrat party.