Dear Senator Cornyn,

No new taxes for socialized medicine!

One of the ideas being proposed by the Senate Finance Committee is to pay for government-run health care by raising taxes on beverages. This tax scheme is a bad one, and would cost everyone that enjoys soda, sports drinks or alcoholic beverages. Raising taxes on the American people during a recession is bad policy, regardless of what the money will supposedly be spent on.

Leaders in the Senate are planning on paying for the government takeover of healthcare with massive taxes on soda and alcoholic beverages. It’s a hefty chunk of change: beer would be up 145% per six pack, the liquor tax would increase $2.54 per fifth, and the soda tax could be raised as well.

Those who want to see a Canadian-style socialized health care system have managed to sneak reconciliation language into the budget which means that Senator Reid and his allies can limit debate of this monumental decision and pass sweeping changes to our health care system with only 51 votes. That’s why every vote counts to preserve the choice and freedom we have.

This is something America just can’t afford right now – these tax hikes mean less money in our own pockets and a severe hit to the already suffering restaurant business and their employees.

I'd like to see you publicly state your opposition to the beverage tax idea.

Sincerely,

Dr. Chris Albritton

Patriotic to pay more taxes...???

Dear President Obama,

Vice President Joe Biden said during the 2008 campaign that it is patriotic for Americans to pay more in taxes.

Since taking over control of Washington, the Democrats have decided we should all be more "patriotic" having passed or proposed more than $5 trillion in new spending and $1.4 trillion in new taxes.

I don't believe that it is patriotic to pay more taxes.

And I do not approve of the $1.4 trillion in new taxes, $636 billion in higher energy taxes, the staggering redistribution of wealth and wasteful spending you are prescribing as a cure for the economic crisis.

To hold the Democrats in Washington accountable for their record tax, spend and borrow schemes, I am sending a virtual tea bag to protest your plans to raise taxes on every American this Tax Day.

Sincerely,

Dr. Chris Albritton

Letter to Congressman Randy Neugebauer on the FairTax Issue:

Dear Randy,

Please support Iowa Congressman Steve King in his "Special Order" on the House floor on Tuesday March 17, as he talks about the FairTax. I encourage you to join him on the House floor.

We all know that President Obama plans to increase our taxes, and the Congressman and other members will be contrasting these planned tax hikes with the FairTax and all it can do to stimulate our economy.

Thank you for your previous support of H.R. 25, the FairTax bill.

Please join Congressman King on the floor tomorrow night in support of the FairTax during this highly-visible floor session.

Randy, I sincerely appreciate all that you do in support of conservative ideology for the Abilene area.

Gratefully,

Dr. Chris Albritton Abilene, TX

CAN OBAMA LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT ?

CAN OBAMA LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT ?
The following was sent to me in an e-mail, and I am still trying to find out if it is true. Please feel free to post comments.

Can Obama Legally Be President?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason: Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986.

Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. John McCain was born to two US citizens even though he was born in the Panama Canal.

Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother
fails the test for being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack
Obama's birth, but after age 16. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in
Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding
the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of
President.

*** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law.

I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.

Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.