Final Election Thoughts

As we near the election, it is time to lay out the the reasons why I will not vote for Obama.


The Constitution: Obama has made several disturbing comments about the Constitution. Funny thing, is the president is suppose to swear to uphold the Constitution. No, he wont be able to wave a magic wand and change it/usher in a new one. But he will be able to slowly chisel away at it (as previous presidents have done). I fear the loss of freedom. I fear the loss of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I fear radical agendas will be pushed that will regulate what can be said, read, listened to, and thought about. Not directly. Just a slow chiseling away of our liberties.

Gun rights. Every chance that Obama has had he has voted against private gun ownership. Obama says he wont touch your guns, but his voting record speaks differently.

Abortion. Obama has the most radical view on abortion of any candidate to seek the office of the presidency. Even babies who survive an abortion don’t have a right to personhood.

Taxation and the budget: Obama has pledged to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but has also promised hundreds of billions in new spending. Both cannot exist. Sure obama has promised to cut programs, but it just doesn’t add up. What he isn’t telling you is he may cut taxes on families, but he will raise it on their places of employment and others products and goods. Guess what. That will trickle down and you’ll pay it anyway either at the store or through losing your job.

Jobs. I believe Obama plans to raise taxes on big corporations and those who are “too wealthy.” The loss of income and revenue will trickle down and result in layoffs and even more outsourcing as it becomes too expensive for companies to do pay Obama’s taxes. Not to mention the new corporate taxes will trickle down to the middle class who cannot afford their every day needs as it is. Funny thing is, it will be a lot of union-driven companies, whose union members voted for him that get shut down.

Energy. I admire Obama’s pledge to make the U,S, energy independent in 10 years, but he is dreaming. The whole entire U.S. economy is built off of oil, virtually all of which comes from overseas. You need much longer than 10 years to completing change the infrastructure of an entire nation and economy. Millions of gas stations and tens of millions of cars would need to be phased out. This would take longer than 25 years. Not to mention first you need to come up with a suistanable energy source to take the place of oil. So how do you pay for it?

You could raise taxes of car companies, oil companies, coal companies, and gas. However that would have to be a drastic tax increase and it would trickle down to hard working Americans and truly kill the economy and eliminate jobs. I.E. evil energy companies will cease to exist in America resulting in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs (think of all those union-driven coal mines and coal plants through out the U.S.). And they wont be able to magically transfer over to new energy jobs the next day. It will take time. A gradual phase out is needed. Not an immediate bankrupting of the energy market which will lead to an economic collapse. I am for preserving the environment, but not while having the u.S. economy evaporate with it.

National Security. I do not think Obama has what it takes to survive on the international scene. Being an international leader takes more than good rhetoric and tea parties with national leaders. Obama may half to face tensions, crisises, and leaders who do not like him very much. When he has to meet with the like of Chavez, Putin, and Ahmadinejad. Will he be able to stand up to them? Or will he be pushed around like a wheelbarrow? I’ll go with the latter. I fera he will fail miserably when tested by fire on the international scene.

8. Of the most important tasks of a president is to appoint judges. Judges who will implement, uphold, and destroy laws. What kinda of judges will Obama appoint? Ones who will serve to protect the rights of all Americans or judges who will push a radically liberal agenda and continue to shake up this nation? I fear he will appoint judges who will shove an agenda down our throats whether we like it or not.


Now before anyone says…but…but…but McCain will do that too! Yes, he probably will, but not as bad. And unfortunately, we have a monopoly of political power between these two parties. Therefore, tomorrow I will vote for the lesser of two evils.

Should Obama be added to Mount Rushmore?

Obama will bankrupt the energy market

Obama will bankrupt the energy market

Comrade Obama?

October 31, 2008 PJB: Comrade Obama? By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I’ve ever seen. Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks. If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the “Communist Manifesto” of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful.

Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor. “Spread the wealth,” Barack admonished Joe the Plumber. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief. West: “You may recognize this famous quote: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen.

Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke?” Biden’s better defense, however, might have be the “Tu quoque!” retort: “You, too!” — the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy. Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor? Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system? Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms. Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born? In his 1938 essay “The Revolution Was,” Garet Garrett wrote: “There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom.” Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it — to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called “the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed.” And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama’s words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001? He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about “redistributive change” in society, of the “tragedy” of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the “political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” Normal people don’t talk like that. Socialists do. This is ideology speaking.

This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the “Marxist professors” Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger. Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212182916.shtml

CBS News: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up. Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion. Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal. "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said. The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending.

According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short. Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper? And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing. Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once. Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml

"Vote Obama, I need the money"

Redistribution Plan may take a while

Yesterday on my way to lunch at Olive Garden, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in Olive Garden my waiter had on an "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.