Redistribution of Wealth

This is from an interview with a Chicago radio station in 2001. If you listen carefully (well maybe you won't have to be so careful) you'll notice that Obama thinks that the constitution is flawed. He says that the constitution says what the government and states can't do, but doesn't say what they have to do for the people.

"Ask not what uh, er, you can do for your uh, country. Uh, Ask what does my uh, government, owe ME?"

Joe Biden puts his foot in his mouth...again.

I've heard this story from so many places I don't really know who to give credit to. Beck, Limbaugh, Boortz, Levin. I don't know, you pick.

Senator Obama, speaking to Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher:

OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Senator Biden, speaking to Barbara West at WFTV News:

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 Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Or is that a real question?

WEST: That's a question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.

Eh? Senator Biden, anyone in the nation who is paying attention to this election heard Obama tell Joe the plumber that an Obama Administration would 'spread the wealth around'. Where have you been? I know your foot is almost permanently placed in your mouth, but, MY GOODNESS! You are either a liar, an idiot or ignorant. In the position you are running for, I don't know which is worse, but none of the above would be good for America.

Just a fact check for Joe Biden. The Bush Administration gave EVERY American a tax break. Senator Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will be a tax increase for every American family making over $25,000. But Obama's not going to raise taxes....riiiiggghtttt.

Jindal '12

Why John McCain did not pick Bobby Jindal for his running mate is anyone's guess. Though many conservatives have fallen in love (figuratively and in some cases literally) with Sarah Palin, let's look at Bobby Jindal's credentials: (from US News & World Report.com )

1. The son of immigrants from India's Punjab state, Jindal made history when he became the first U.S. governor with roots in India.

2. Born Piyush Jindal in Baton Rouge in 1971, he gave himself the nickname Bobby—after the youngest son on The Brady Bunch—when he was 4.

3. Raised a Hindu, Jindal converted to Catholicism as a teenager. As a young convert, he wrote of the emotional and intellectual struggles of his spiritual journey in several articles that were published in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic magazine.

4. Jindal graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1987. He attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy. He turned down admissions to medical and law schools at Harvard and Yale to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.

5. While attending Oxford, Jindal contemplated joining the priesthood. He ultimately decided that it was not for him.

6. In 2006, Jindal and his wife, Supriya, delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received a nurse's coaching by phone. Just as he was completing the umbilical cord procedure with a shoestring, paramedics arrived. The Jindals have a daughter and two sons.

7. Before he turned 30, Jindal headed Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals and became president of the University of Louisiana System. He served in the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in the late '90s. Prior to public service, Jindal worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

8. In 2003, Gov. Mike Foster, who was finishing his second consecutive term and therefore could not run again, encouraged Jindal to run for governor. Defeated by Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Jindal's first bid for governor was unsuccessful.

9. In 2004, he sought the congressional seat from Louisiana's First District. He won with a whopping 78 percent of the vote and was re-elected in 2006 with almost 90 percent.

10. In 2007, Jindal ran for governor again and won. The victory was largely attributed to old-fashioned politicking, which included Jindal "giving testimony" in Pentecostal and Baptist churches in rural and remote sections of Louisiana.

While Sarah Palin DOES have more executive experience than Obama, McCain and Biden combined, so does Bobby Jindal. He has legislative experience and a little executive experience. But he has such a broad scope of experience that it would be hard for him to be attacked by the likes of the liberals who are attacking Sarah Palin currently. But perhaps it is destined to be. Some have said that we needed Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. Maybe we need Barack Hussein Obama to get the next great conservative, Bobby Jindal.

Congratulations 'My Friend'

To Senator McCain:

Congratulations my friend. You did well in the debate, last night. I think you finally won outright. I think, substance wise you have been winning, but you have come across as robotic, cantankerous, and choppy and have said, 'my friends' far too often. Last night, you articulated your points better, taking Senator Obama to task on many occasions. Probably not enough for my liking, but probably as much as the debate format would allow. There are still people out there who do not yet understand that Senator Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or even worse, Benito Mussolini. His desire to socialize everything is plain wrong and un-American.

Senator McCain, you said last night that you are a Federalist. This was a profound statement. Stating the differences between Federalism and Socialism could win you the election. The federal government has grown too big for its britches, (much like many of the American People) and has exceeded its constitutional mandate. We need to get it in check. Please go back in the direction of true constitutional government, and draw the line between yourself and Senator Obama on these issues. As much as the American people should be shocked and appalled by Obama's connections with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Raila Odinga, they, for some reason do not care. But I believe that Americans do believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, they just don't know what the documents say. These two documents along with the Magna Carta are probably the greatest documents in the history of the world with the only exception being the Holy Bible. People respect these documents, tell them what was written 225 years ago, how you will uphold these documents, and how Senator Obama will not.

Born Alive Truth

I've heard about Obama's 'work' in the Illinois legislature where he stopped a bill from coming out of committee that would have ended the disgusting practice of infanticide. I believe all abortions are infanticide, however Obama opposed providing care even to children born ALIVE due to failed abortions. Even the Pro-Abortion group NARAL did not oppose this legislation, either the Illinois bill or the Federal Bill, which were virtually identical.

I've only just today found out about this website http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. There is a video on the website with ads that will be running. I also have posted a video here from the O'Reilly Factor in 2000 with Jill Stanek, who has spearheaded this fight to give rights to those who need it most, to those who can't fight for themselves; victims of failed abortions and subsequent suffocation due to indifference and political posturing from people like Barack Obama.

If you call yourself a Christian and you plan on voting for Obama, think again. He is not a Christian! No Christian could possibly allow children born alive to suffocate for hours until they die! If you vote for Obama, this is the tip of the iceberg. I'll leave his radical socialist and communist policies for other posts. This issue is too important and crucial to just leave alone. People need to know how far he is willing to go to gain, and keep power; even to abandoning infants, leaving the to die like an insect. If this were done to a dog or a cat, it would be a felony, but apparently a human life isn't as valuable to a certain Senator from Illinois.





This video was from before the bill was kept from a vote in Illinois, and before the Federal Law passed. Obama would not allow the Induced Infant Liability Act (the Illinois bill), which would protect children born due to failed abortions, out of his committee. When babies are born alive, (due to these failed late-term abortions) they are left to die. Senator Obama is lying about his record on this, and Christians who are considering voting for him better wake up! Obama does not answer tough questions directly. He stutters and stumbles around, talks for a few minutes and never answers the question. He has no convictions! You may disagree with John McCain. I do on many issues. But McCain knows what he believes, and he has convictions. Obama is not as forthcoming; hiding his motives behind empty rhetoric in his slick speeches and stuttering ramblings during face-to-face interviews. If he is willing to sit idly by and watch an infant die a death of suffocation, left alone like a piece of trash, what makes anyone think he really cares about the middle class and the poor? He doesn't. Here is one of MANY articles which show his disdain for human life, and gives more details of his despicable actions in the Illinois Legislature.

Reagan Redivivus???

I don't know, I'm still not sold on Sarah Palin. I think conservatives are treating her almost like liberals are treating Obama. She is not being scrutinized enough. It's not enough to feel good about a candidate, we have to also make sure that what we are being fed by the media is accurate.

There's no question that the left is on a mission to destroy her, but conservatives are on a mission to paint her as Reagan Redivivus. I really don't know about her. She's not terribly experienced. I admit that she has more executive experience, which is what counts at this point, than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. I don't know that that's saying much though.

Now getting to the issue of family. I know that every Republican is staying away from this subject but I can not, because it does give a glimpse into her character, if even a small one. I believe that the most important relationship outside of the relationship with God is with your spouse, and then with your children. I also know that kids will be kids, and kids will be rebellious, but I'm not sure about this situation. In talking about Jamie Lynn Spears, the tool Bill O'Reilly classically said it's the parents fault. (hattip to lafin gas over at TBSN) Now certainly there is a much different dynamic in the Spears family than the Palin's. But shouldn't we even question it? Why is this getting a pass? Imagine if Chelsea Clinton turned up pregnant during Bill Clinton's time in office. There would have been a media firestorm.

I'm not saying that she's necessarily a bad choice, she could turn out to be a great choice. But I'm not sold yet. I don't get how people like James Dobson are not even questioning her on this. Now, because we're talking about a conservative candidate, teenage pregnancy is a 'family' issue. If it was a liberal though, the same people would be questioning the parenting and family values in that home, and say how it's a reflection of society in general. Family values in America have been thrown out the window and have been trampled and stomped on. The Spears' family is probably part of the problem, and certainly a reflection of the problem. But, the overall lack of parenting in America is primarily to blame.

We let daycare, schools and TV raise our kids nowadays. What they see as normal is the rot that comes in through the TV. Even if you raise your kids properly, if they go to school, they are still subjected to that filth by the kids whose parents don't care. The vast majority of schools are not helping. They either are contributing to the problem by not teaching kids critical thinking skills or they are indoctrinating kids into liberalism outright.

Back to Sarah Palin. I believe that she is a mother who truly cares about her kids and wants the best for her kids. But I do wonder if her parental choices would be getting a pass from conservatives if she was a Democrat. Are 'values voters' really convinced that her parenting is what it should be, or has the full-frontal assault by conservative pundits and commentators guilting conservatives into believing that she's the real deal? I don't mean to bash her, but there are serious problems that are visible. Our culture has devolved to the point that you are a hate-monger for asking serious questions. I know that there is no perfect candidate, and in this election cycle there were certainly fewer decent ones than usual, but my question is this: Should we be looking into her personal life for insight into what kind of Vice President she will be? I say yes. Rudy Giuliani's failed marriages have been brought into question and no one complained about that. As have Fred Thompson's and John McCain's. While I don't think her family situation should disqualify her, I think it should be debated. Debate is not bad. Questioning is not bad. It should either refine the candidate and make them better or show them to be unqualified. Either way, it is better for America.

Thank You Obama

On Thursday, August 21st Barack Obama gave us this little nugget of wisdom:

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

I would like to say thank you to Barack Obama. Thank you for making it clear to us what you really want. You continue hinting at your push for socialism. This is just one more example. So you want the government to control healthcare, you want government control of energy, and you want a communist style government to work on infrastructure? Thank you Barack for not hiding who you really are.

I do have a question for you though Senator. Why does China look like a good option for business? Is it because wages and tax rates are lower? But you want to raise taxes Senator. Do you want to make China look like an even better option for business? Or will you deny that when you become Grand Exalted Premier? You have also said that you think we shouldn't even have elections, this one from a speech in (where else) San Francisco this past week:

“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, ‘Let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.’ ”
and “So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, ‘This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ’em out.’ But American politics aren’t that simple.”

No Senator, American politics aren't that simple. We have these things called elections. In elections, the American people get an opportunity to vote. What's funny is that unlike places you like to look up to, like China and the Soviet Union, there is usually more than one person running in the election. Yes, you do have to go through the primary process, because people have to make sure that whoever they vote for is the best person for the job. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, and sometimes there isn't a good choice, (like this year) but we always have a say, and an opportunity to vote for who we think is the best. That is unless you become President with a Democrat majority and then you'll just work on getting rid of those pesky elections won't you?

Referendum on Obama?

I'm not sure who I've heard say this on talk radio, perhaps it's a number of hosts. I'm pretty sure Rush and Levin have both said that this election is not about McCain, but is a referendum on Obama. Surely the journalist who wrote this article picked up on this. Well, I do agree that this election is all about Obama. Obama is hailed as the messiah for the Democrats, but he isn't even cracking 50% in the polls. Perhaps Americans aren't as blind as the Mainstream Media thinks they are. On the outside, it would appear to be a two man race, but really it is just a "Referendum on Obama". Are Obama and his radical policies what America needs (no) or even want? (I hope not)

Even though McCain is the one who picked up the nomination for the Republicans, he was not the choice of conservatives or even of a majority of Republicans. However with no clear-cut conservative candidate, McCain emerged as the guy the largest segment of Republicans (and Democrats who decided to vote in the Republican Primary) chose to vote for. Conservatives were split trying to figure out who, between Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee, fit the mold they were looking for. None of them were the star that conservatives hoped for, and McCain emerged as the winner almost by default. It was almost like a 'Battle Royale' and McCain hid in the corner as all the other guys were fighting it out. Once Romney had his back turned, McCain snuck up and pushed him out of the ring.

Coming back to Obama, as he is what this election is about anyway. He is not running away with this election, and the Democrats are stunned. He has received Rock Star treatment and has women swooning over him. Why isn't he running away with this election then? I believe that the more people find out about his policies, the more he scares the crap out of them. His policies sound a whole lot like a watered down version of Marxism. He is so set on raising taxes on the rich to make things "fair" he misses the point. The rich already pay WAY more than what is "fair", but Obama wants to increase it. If Obama wanted the tax structure to be "fair", he would be pushing for the Fair Tax, or some sort of flat tax. No, he wants wealth redistribution. The problem is, wealth redistribution ALWAYS FAILS. If we redistribute wealth, we will lose jobs. Big Business will be forced to move overseas, and small businesses will go out of business. The businesses that stay and survive will not be able to hire as many employees because their tax burden is too high. People will have to work more hours to make ends meet, (if they can find a job) cutting time with family which already is too low in America.

His energy policies are laughable. He (and his party) has done nothing to attempt to bring down oil prices. He says we just need to use less. Well here's the problem Barack, we ARE using less. But at $4.00 a gallon it crushes our wallet no matter how much we cut back. If we all lived in Chicago or New York, it wouldn't matter quite as much, but where regular Americans live, we sometimes have to drive to places like work. Increased fuel and food prices mean we have to cut back on spending, (which hurts the economy) saving and investing, (which hurts our future as well as the economy) or paying bills, which hurts quality of life. The average joe has had to cut back to make ends meet and Obama has offered nothing but this little nugget of wisdom; "put air in your tires". Brilliant, if that is the kind of leadership we can expect for four years of an Obama administration, there's no wonder he isn't cleaning McCain's clock.

I really hate the idea of voting against someone I don't like. I really would like to vote FOR someone I do like. But in order to do that, I'll have to write someone in. I just 'hope' Americans will come to their senses and pay attention to the 'change' that Obama wants to bring to America. It looks a whole lot like Marxism.

Are you kidding me?

I've linked to a 'Yahoo!' News story that really got under my skin. I think I will have to do research on the writer because she is either working for Obama, or she bumped her head, or she is taking some serious psychedelic medications.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_analysis_6



John McCain and Barack Obama are polar opposites? What planet does this woman live on? John McCain is as liberal as you can be and still be considered a 'moderate'. He isn't a moderate, he's a liberal. Since we keep changing the definition of the terms moderate and conservative however, I guess by the new (but not improved) American definition of 'moderate', McCain fits.

McCain has the liberal view of immigration, global warming, energy policy, freedom of speech (or lack thereof) etc., etc. The only thing he has a somewhat conservative viewpoint on is the war on Islamic Terrorists. I don't believe that he is a true believer on taxes, but he knows he needs to throw a little bone to true conservatives. How about throwing a REAL bone, like changing your liberal viewpoints, and also picking a conservative running mate. How about after picking your running mate, throwing out conservatives for cabinet positions as well. Conservatives are not buying that McCain is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and please stop using Reagan's name in your speeches. This is what we want Senator McCain:







OR




OR



EVEN


These men may not be perfect, but they are far better than you Senator, and if you want conservatives to trust you, we need to know that the next in line IS a conservative, and will stand up for conservative principles.

Extremism

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater 1964 Republican National Convention

We are entering a new political era. These words from over 40 years ago can stir the conservative masses. But where are we? There is no one running for president who exemplifies this. The two Republicans who represented this ran poor campaigns. The only person still running who is semi-conservative (Mitt Romney) does not really fit this bill. If elected, I think Romney would be a good to very-good president, but I don't think he will be great, because I honestly don't think he will do everything it takes to defend America. I don't think he is an extremist for conservatism. I hope I'm wrong. But truly, what are our alternatives? John McCain, whose positions follow the Mainstream Media? How about Hillary Clinton? She never met a crowd she wouldn't pander to. Barack Obama seems like a really nice guy, but what about his policies? He sounds as far left as Hillary.

Both Clinton and Obama would pull our troops out of the Middle East regardless of the situation there. It could be argued all night about whether we should have been there in the first place, but we made a big mess, and now we have to clean it up. If the left and right keep arguing about how and if we should clean it up, it will still be a mess. If we work together, we can say; 'Well how do we fix this now? We'll figure out who's to blame later.' That's not what we get from Hillary or Barack though.

What else do they offer? Higher taxes. Open borders. Infanticide on demand. Socialized business. The restriction of the first and second amendments. It goes on and on. While most of Europe is going to the right as they've seen the impact of socialism, America keeps going left. John McCain is only marginally better than Clinton or Obama. He seems to understand that we must win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's willing to leave our borders open. He fought for the Amnesty bill, and when overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, he (along with his co-conspiritors) tried to sneak it in again.

So where does Romney stand? He is pro-business. Now I am not a fan of business having free reign as they have under the Bush adminstration, but socialism is not the answer either. He is for keeping taxes low. He is certainly better on infanticide, immigration, freedom of speech and religion, and taxes than anyone else running. I also think he will do a good job managing the war. He couldn't do worse than Bush and Rumsfeld anyway. So I hope that on super tuesday, conservatives will make the right choice. I hope conservatives will vote for Mitt Romney. Even if he loses the general election, we can't lower our standards so far to vote for McCain because; 'He polls better against Hillary.' That can't be it. Romney is no Lincoln, but who is? He is conservative enough to be a good President. Here's hoping conservatism is still alive in America. We don't have an extreme conservative, but we have a decent one, if people will vote for him. The alternative is less than 'moderation in the pursuit of justice.'