The Attorney General of the United States recently dropped all charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  YouTube has a few videos of the voter intimidation.  Justice Department did not release an official statement but simply dropped the charges.  Most charges are dropped when there is not enough evidence to move forward with a trial, but with the video evidence, it seems like this is not the case.

The most disturbing aspect about this is the lack of communication from the White House or the Justice Department.  During the Bush administration, Justice Department officials cited plenty of evidence to move forward.  It is Obama’s Justice Department who has decided that there was “insufficient evidence.”

The facts of the case are that two Black Panthers, both wearing camouflage fatigues and one carrying a night stick, were walking in front of the entrance of a voting place.  While the reports differ, the common denominator was that people felt frightened at the sight of the man.  The eye-witness reports range from outright barring of white people to simply “looking mean.”  Since the Justice Department has not released their investigation notes, it’s hard to say.

When the Justice Department dropped the charges, they have given permission for other groups to “look mean” at the polls.  Members of the KKK, in their robes, can stand outside polling places.  They don’t have to say anything.  They can even hold the door open for people.  If this is ALL that they do, they should not get charged.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, any “intimidation” that does not go beyond that of “looking mean” should be dismissed.  The sad fact may be that because the Obama administration is so adamant about flouting the Constitution and the law, Tea Partiers may end up being arrested and charged for simply wearing Anti-Obama shirts when they go to vote.

Of Obama wants to be the great president he says, he should fire Eric Holder and conduct a special investigation into this case.  A dismissed charged does not attach jeopardy so the Black Panthers can be charged again.  Make the investigation transparent, open to the public, and independent.  Then again, the last time there was a special independent investigator, he was fired for finding fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.

The White House wants people to report “disinformation” to flag@whitehouse.com.  Barack Obama has even said he doesn’t want people who disagree with him to “do a whole lot of talking“.

This is nothing short of a desperate “President” trying to scare his critics into backing down.  But, hey, if he wants to get a whole bunch of e-mails, that’s his business.  I think We the People should report our neighbors for spreading disinformation.  And I say we start with the Obama supporters.

No doubt that this community activist has enlisted a large army of kool-aid drinkers into doing his bidding.  To level the playing field, we should do the same.  In the next week, I’ll be debuting a website where fellow conservatives can report Obama supporters.  Upload pictures of their bumper stickers (including license plates).  Use the Freedom of Information Act in your state to obtain their address, phone number, and any other identifying information.  That information will be publicly displayed for people to see.

Unlike the White House, this list will not be illegal since the information is publicly available.  What people decide to do with the information is not up for the state to decide.

Once I have the website up and running, I’ll make another announcement on this site and on Twitter.

While I am not one of the people who believe Obama is not a citizen, the fact that so many people have blindly accepted this fact has caused me great concern.  Several law suits have already been issued and quickly dismissed.  However, there has been little to no information from the Obama camp to assuage these charges.  Their silence has only deepened the controversy to the point that I am beginning to wonder why the president refuses to acknowledge this question.

Senators have taken the issue from their constituents and pretty much replied, “Whatever.  Get a life.”  But I found this particular reply interesting:

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”

Just because someone is elected by the people doesn’t mean that the elected is qualified as per the constitution.  For example, we can vote for my dog by a huge majority.  Yes, he can win the primary.  And sure, he can win the general election.  But it doesn’t mean that he can be president.  I hope Senator Martinez isn’t suggesting that we completely ignore the constitution and only rely upon public opinion.

The problem I see with this whole issue is that the government as a whole thus far has suppressed these complaints.  This is something that should be put to rest, once and for all.  The court should rule that either Obama is duly qualified natural born citizen that can take the office of the President or that he isn’t.

The controversy has become incredibly strong.  It needs to be put to rest.

We would be absolutely opposed to relocating Guantanamo prisoners to Alexandria.  We would do everything in our power to lobby the president, the governor, the Congress and everyone else to stop it. We’ve had this experience, and it was unpleasant. Let someone else have it.

Mayor Euille, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.  People have protested Gitmo and wanted it closed during the Bush administration.  Now that some of those “innocent” people are going to be released, they don’t want them there!

This is similar to a story that I heard about a year ago.  Montgomery county in Maryland said that they would not help Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown on laborers.  But the largely liberal community cried out when these laborers started loitering around their neighborhood.

This goes to show that liberals only care about justice when it’s cool and hip.  If you truly believe that these wrongly held citizens are innocent, why not invite them with open arms?

I’ll be the first to say welcome!  Here’s my letter to Major Euille:

Mayor Euille:

I am shocked by the comments you made regarding the possible relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Alexandria.  Many of your constituents have demanded their release from the prison.  Many of these same constituents wanted to end the war in Iraq.  I personally don’t take these positions but I find it highly hypocritical that you would not welcome these detainees with open arms.

Per our constitution, all of these detainees are INNOCENT until proven guilty.  With the new president, he is listening to the people and is releasing them.  It’s not right for these same people to now complain when they are being released into their back yard.  Alexandria, who voted President Obama in with a sweeping majority, should now embrace these detainees.  After all, they haven’t even been charged with a crime.

I expect more from a leader such as yourself.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

UPDATE :: 31 March 2009 10:00 am

Mayor Euille did me the courtous thing and replied to me.  But it confuses more than it answers.  I guess if he couldn’t do that he wouldn’t be in politics:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your concerns about the disposition of the Guantanamo detainees. While I support the closing of this facility and giving the detainees a fair trial, I believe that Alexandria has already done its fair share by handling for more than four years the Missaoui trial.

William D. Euille
Mayor

For those that don’t know, Missaoui, a Gitmo detainee was tried in the federal court located in Alexandria.  Of course, there were protests and the like.  The security alone cost an arm and a leg.  However, a democratic society has the duty to administer justice, right?  Well, apparently, Mayor Euille doesn’t believe in justice.  He believes in convienence.  Here is my reply to him:

Mayor Euille

I appreciate your reply. However, I’m confused by your last sentence of your e-mail. If you support giving the detainees a fair trail, why should it matter how many detainees are tried? Does this mean that you don’t support exonerating wrongly convicted prisoners?

It seems that there is a double standard. I believe that as a democracy, we should give these detainees the benefit of the doubt and support them as a community. They have yet to be proven of any wrong doing. I think that by saying that “Alexandria has done it’s fair share” you are saying “Let someone else deal with the problem.”  But what problem is that?  Administering justice?  Making sure that a possibly innocent person gets his fair day in court?

The detainees should be treated with respect, and not like garbage that we can simply pass on to someone else. The next city many not be as accommodating as the fair citizens of Alexandria, who support President Obama. I continue to disagree with your position would appreciate a more thorough explanation.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh

In a several-part series, I plan on explaining how taxes have gone from funding the general security and function of the government to funding stupid programs that waste more money than they help.

To be clear, I am not an economist or an accountant. The point of this post — this blog! — is to provide a common-sense light to things that our government is doing. While there are things that require Ph.D to understand, some things, like money, should be fairly common sense. However, the more I live here, the more I’m finding that common sense is actually not that common.

Income tax started at the beginning of the Civil War. Money was needed to pay for the guns, uniforms, etc. to fight the south. The south procured the majority of its funding from England. After the war, the tax stayed to keep the status quo of the military and to be the strength of the executive branch. As time went on, Congress realized the need for a regular funding and passed the 16th amendment.

What started as a very lean budget grew substantially as special interests gained more traction than citizens. The budget for 2007 was $2.8 trillion. For comparison:

$1 million: $1,000,000

$1 trillion: $1,000,000,000,000

(Despite what you’re told, the War on Terror is not a budgeted item. It is appropriated. In short, anytime the President or Congress thinks the military needs more funding, it is voted on each and every time.  The DOD annual budget takes care of the maintenance and upkeep of the military.)

The vast majority of revenue comes from income taxes, which is what I’ll be focusing on for this blog entry.

The concept of the income tax is a bit stupid if you ask me.  All my life, my parents raised me to do well in school and so that I can be successful in life.  A part of that was earning money and building wealth.  Ask any person what they consider to be success they will say money!  But doesn’t it seem odd that the only entity that punishes you for making money is the government?

Think about it: the majority of Americans (including myself) are in the middle-income bracket.  This is roughly defined as an annual income $35,000 to $75,000, depending on region.  As you make more money, the government punishes you (e.g. taxes you) for being successful.  The government provides very little incentive for you to increase your tax bracket.  In fact, people are often worried that a raise or a bonus will push them into an upper tax bracket.

It seems to me that the government would want to encourage people to make more money, not punish.  Many liberal thinking people – I’m talking to you Obama — say that income taxes “redistribute” the tax burden to the wealthy.  But like most things, it sounds nice and looks pretty, but you can polish poo all you want but it will still stink like poo.

When Obama says redistribute, he’s right.  But it doesn’t redistribute taxes.  In fact, it redistributes debt.

The “rich” (as Obama defines them) make about 2% of the population.  Let’s make this 10% just for effect.  Obama has said that he wants to lower income taxes for anyone not in this top 10%.  Being charismatic, let’s say that this is a 20% reduction.  Now, this money has got to come from somewhere, right?  He said that he will increase taxes on the rich.  And let’s be modest here.  Let’s say it’s only going to be a 1% raise.  Who’s going to notice an extra penny per dollar right?

So here’s the question: is it fair to charge a minoriaty of people the majority of the taxes?  A man who has championed changed, who himself is a minority*, wants to charge a select group of people more because of who they are.

That’s not all: people don’t get rich because they give money away.  People get rich because they save!  Because income taxes punishes income, people do not have an incentive to save.  In fact, people have an incentive to SPEND! Take a look at the economic situation right now.  We’re in this mess because the government encouraged people to purchase homes instead of saving! The result is people purchasing more house than they could afford, causing banks to foreclose, forcing credit to go down the tubes.  Is it any surprise that the people who are weathering this credit storm have a great amount of savings?  And contrastly, the majority of people who are losing their homes not only don’t have a savings account but are maxed out on credit cards?

The income tax that Obama proposes will only increase this cycle of debt, trapping millions of Americans.  When you increase taxes on the wealthy, they are less inclined to spend because they want to save.  They will put more money into the market to shelter their income, contribute more into tax-free vehicles such as IRAs, 401ks, and they will donate more to non-profit organizations for tremendious tax breaks.  In the end, the wealthy will probably not pay much more taxes than they do now.

So the question remains, where will this money come from?  The middle and lower class.  Many of these people don’t have savings accounts because they have no incentive to.  They can’t shelter their money because they don’t have as much of it as the wealthy and they need it liquid.  The middle and lower class will see relief in the very short term — until democrats realize that the rich aren’t paying as much taxes as they realized and so have to raise taxes for everyone.

The best way to increase revenue is to sell bonds because it encourages tax-free investment. Everyone — including 2 year olds with at least $50 — can purchase government bonds.  They are guarenteed by the government to earn a steady interest, which you won’t pay taxes on.

Come tax season, the question on everyone’s mind is, “Do I itemize or take the standard deduction?”  If you itemize, you look for every nook and cranny to make sure you get every tax break afforded to you, don’t you?  I have yet to meet anyone who actively has given the government MORE money than they needed to.

Find me that person and then I’ll believe in an income-based tax system.  Until then, it’s clear that income-based taxes don’t help the middle-lower class; it chains them to debt.

Obama will lower taxes on the middle and lower class, but it won’t last. It will be a good short-term measure because it sounds great in a campaign.  You’ll know that it’s not working when you notice the market start to go up and bond percentages go down.

To be clear, I would rather increase taxes on the middle and lower income ranges (which I am in) and decrease taxes on the rich than Obama’s plan. In a common-sense world, taxes wouldn’t be based on income.  But until then, Obama can keep his change.

Why is it that Obama as well as other democrats don’t like to encourage people to save? Instead, he wants to take money out of my pocket to give it to people who are going to waste it?

In fact, almost all laws that they introduce takes responsibility away from people and gives it to the government. Health insurance, mortgage bale-out, and even voting has gone from personal responsibility to government hand-out.

There is no incentive for people to save money. Why is this? The average American doesn’t have a savings or if they do, it’s less than $1000. We live in a culture that encourages us to spend way more than we make, using credit cards like they are free.

I don’t understand why people think that giving more responsibility to the government will make things better.  Everybody has been to the DMV.  If the government can make that more efficient, than I’d be more than happy to give the government more responsibility.  Until then, I’ll keep my money.