theREALtruth.com

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-spend-labor-day-detroi...

Support for unions is on the decline in America today, and at it's lowest point since the 1930s when unions started their rise to power. Despite this, Obama has elected to spend today (Labor Day) at the AFL-CIO rally in Detroit.

Will this hurt Obama come re-election time, if his opponents remind Americans that on Labor Day 2011, when we had 9.1% unemployment, Obama spent the holiday with the AFL-CIO (one of the most uncompromising unions in the nation)?

As many of us know, Boeing has attempted to open a second production line in South Carolina - which would bring a minimum of 1,000 non-union jobs to the region to build the 787 Dreamliner (since South Carolina is a right-to-work state). At the same time, Boeing has also expanded it's Washington production line by an addition 500 union employees.

The NLRB is suing Boeing to move that second production line into Washington, claiming that the new line being built in South Carolina is illegal retaliation against the union in Washington (yet ignores that Boeing expanded the Washington production line).

Now let's look at General Electric. GE is outsourcing it's entire X-ray department to China, and is laying off every American worker and closing it's plants for that department in the US to instead manufacture the X-ray machines in China where operating costs are lower, all employees are non-union, and labor is cheap.

NLRB has said nothing about GE's decision to lay out thousands of employees and shut down factories in the US.

Why is the NLRB suing Boeing over Boeing's decision to open a second production line in a non-union state (while expanding the size of the production line in the union state), but taking no stance on GE's decision to lay off thousands of workers and shutter entire factories to instead produce their product in China?

The jets are built by American workers, both those used for domestic customers and foreign customers.

The jets are serviced by American workers, both those that stay in this country and those that come back into this country for warranty work.

The jets are fueled and based out of small local airports that are run by American workers.

Obama is attacking those evil rich "corporate jet owners," but does he understand how many middle class Americans stand to lose their jobs if he is successful in his crusade against "corporate jet owners?"

And as much as he attacks "corporate jet owners," why does he use Air Force One so much instead of flying coach in public airlines like the rest of us? Isn't he one of those very same people he attacks (considering most people only lease their corporate jets, not own)?

Is it because that is what the Democrats tell them to tell everyone so the country will get scared?

The US has a recurring monthly tax revenue of between $170B and $190B. More than enough to pay the interest on the national debt and allow the most important government functions to operate for the month - and still have enough left over to pay for senior and veterans benefits.

Why are the Democrats and the MSM trying so hard to scare everyone in this country with their lies?

43% of potential tax payers in this nation (166,000,000 people) don't pay any taxes. So I suggest the following.

1) Eliminate ALL tax "loop holes" that can be used by individual tax payers.

2) Establish a single tax rate that is paid by every single person in this country who has an income.

This way, everyone in America who earns money pays their "fair share" of the tax burden, and there are no loop holes left to lower the amount they pay.

For example, at a 17% rate across everyone, a person making $20,000/year pays $3,400/year in taxes while someone making $200,000/year pays $34,000/year in taxes. And for those really big people who makes $2,000,000/year or more (sports stars, actors, directors, etc., etc.) would be paying $340,000/year in taxes.

Seems perfectly fair to me.

Why not just tax everyone in this country, regardless of income level, at 60% of their income?

Can anyone who is pro-union tell me what unions do today to protect workers rights that isn't already covered by Federal and State law?

I don't tell my credit card issuers that I need a credit limit increase to pay on my bill every month...so why does the Federal government need an increase in the debt ceiling to pay on their debt?

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

He has passed the maximum 90 day mark permitted by the law for the President to get approval from Congress after engaging in hostilities. This is a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973 since use has not asked for or gotten an extension on hostilities or a declaration of war from Congress.

Should he be impeached for this violation of Federal law? Or is is above the law?

And no, Bush did not violate the War Powers Act with Afghanistan or Iraq - he got Congressional declarations of war for both actions.

Can any Democrat on these boards tell me when Representative Paul Ryan's changes to Medicare would take effect and who they will effect?

Since the beginning of the 2008 elections, (most) Liberals have been calling anyone who disagrees with Obama for any reason a racist. Don't like his ideas - you're a racist. Don't like his policies - you're a racist. Don't like his double standards - you're a racist. Don't like his nominees for public office - you're a racist. Don't like the suit he's wearing - you're a racist.

So, by Liberal logic...are the Liberals who disagree with Herman Cain racists?

Why do Liberals insist Obama is the only person who deserves credit for the death of Osama bin Laden?

For eight years, the Left called Bush a chimp and it was fine. Now, Obama is compared to a chimp once directly and once indirectly, and the Left is claiming it is racism.

For anyone who knows history, they know that the racist term was originally "monkey." I suppose the confusion arises from monkeys and chimps (a great ape) both being primates, despite being very different families inside the primate group.

Now...both humans and chimpanzees are great apes. So if people are insinuating that calling Obama a "chimp" is racist (because of the confusion with monkeys and chimps both being primates), then is it also racist to call Obama a "human" because humans are closely related to chimps and about the same amount of relation exists between humans and monkeys as exists between chimps and monkeys.

Can we now ridicule the Obama apologist Liberals (not all Liberals - just a portion of them) that swore up and down Hawaii didn't issue long forms, which is why Obama didn't release one?

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

After all, he was accepted into Harvard Law following Columbia, so it must have been a really impressive GPA.

Should the President of the United States only be allowed a single term?

Take, for instance, our past three Presidents - Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama. Each of them had two terms in office, but only six years of actual governance due to the fact that two years into their first term, they shifted back into campaign mode and put their re-election campaign in front of the job we elected them to do.

With Presidents only being elected for a single term, they would have no need to shift into re-election mode and instead could concentrate entirely on the job they were elected to do - which is to lead our country.

You always hear about Columbine High School (which, might I add, happened DURING the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - and they still got their hands on weapons banned by the ban).

You always hear about Virginia Tech.

You always hear about Northern Illinois University.

You occasionally hear about the Amish school shooting.

Yet, the Left never mentions the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting where an ex-student came on campus with a .380 ACP and killed three people before he was stopped by armed students who retrieved personal firearms and subdued the murderer in a timely fashion, one with a 9mm and one with a .357 Magnum.

Columbine High School - 12 fatalities, 24 wounded

Virginia Tech - 32 fatalities, 25 wounded

Northern Illinois University - 5 fatalities, 15 wounded

Amish school shooting at Nickel Mines - 5 fatalities, 5 wounded

Appalachian School of Law - 3 fatalities, 3 wounded

If banning guns in certain areas and heavily restricting gun ownership will reduce crime, can someone explain to me why the school shooting with the LEAST fatalities and wounded happened at a school that didn't ban personal firearms on the property (as long as they were in the student's car)? By the logic presented by the left, shouldn't the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting have been the most violent and had the most bloodshed, since the shooter AND students had guns?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/...

A call for repeal or modification of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by a known Liberal author in an article written for the New York Daily News.

"There is probably no getting rid of all guns, there is no denying their appeal, and there is no use ignoring the Second Amendment. But amendments can be repealed and then reworded (long guns only?) and somehow made to conform to the 21st century."

Is anyone else surprised that it took four days for an article to appear calling for repeal the Second Amendment or to amend it?