More on redistribution

     Here's a very interesting article that tie's into what I discussed in my last post.  Please take a gander and let me know what you think.

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution 

     One question asked in the article is whether Senator Obama could say an oath stating he would "support and defend the constitution of the United States".  What a powerful question which indicates a profound doubt cast on this person.  What other person in the race could this be asked of?  Mr Obama's reputation and actions have brought about this question not political election-year wrangling.  The relationships or Mr Obama that I have outlined in previous posts, and several other that have come up recently, really makes this question a huge concern.  Can a "President Obama" take actions that would defend those very things that he's stated he disagrees with?  We're all wondering. Without knowing what that answer is, how can anyone truly support this person? 

Wealth Re-Distribution? Here's what to expect

     Wealth distribution; sounds like a good plan right?  What would it take to make everyone in America equal? We all want equality right, and we sure want to "stick-it" to those dirty rich people right? So what are we going to have to do to make that happen? And what can you look forward to if it does?

     According to Wikipedia the average (mean) income in the United States is $60,528.  This is a pretty good income level for many people in fact I'm very close to this level right now.  In my past, my wife and I strived to make it on a lot less and we were happy but we always strived to make a little more so our life would be a little better.  But $60K a year is pretty good right? To some that would be a huge income increase but for other that would be a huge income decrease it's all checks and balances right? If we take that $60K and expand it to a window of $50K to $70K it would be reasonable to assume that this would still keep everyone across the country fairly equal; taking into consideration differences in cost of living due to shipping costs this would be a very fair window for a mean point. So where does this put every one? How many people would get a pay raise and how many a decrease? Well, using the same Wikipedia site, 22.54% of American households are in this bracket so there would be any change for these folks.  24.88% of American households are below this bracket so they would get in increase with 6.76% almost doubling their household income.  That's pretty good right, I mean, we all want people to increase their income; we all want to help people "get a leg up", right?  But did you notice the missing figure?  That's right, 52.58% of American households will take a pay cut in order to make this happen.  The number don't lie, over half of American households will have to give up a portion of their hard earned money to make true wealth distribution.  Is this where we want to go?

     In all societies there are a group of folks that call themselves the "have-nots".  Those folks that look at people more wealthy than them as evil just because they have more.  They look at the wealthy and wonder why they don't give some of their money to them so they can get ahead.  The problem is they don't look very far ahead, they look at all income levels and feel that everyone "owes" them something since they are the "have-nots". Before I get too far I have to say that there are a lot of very hard workers in those lower income lever that don't have their hand out and are trying to work out of that level but they are a very quiet majority.  The screaming minority in those lower levels are the ones creating this societal class war.  But what if they get what they want?  Would they be happy with $60K a year?

     One of the fallacies of wealth equality is that it creates a cap in income.  Once people get to the average level than every above that goes to some one else.  If people know that once they get to a certain income level what incentive do they have to get there?  Why should they work hard to that point when they know that they're not going to get any farther.  In reality they won't even have to worry about that, they will already be there since the government made sure of that by giving them someone else money?  Do you see a problem here?  Lack of incentive, a salary cap; how does this promote growth?  

     Here's another side of this problem; to get this started the government will have to take away money from 52.58% of the households.  So 52.58% of the people are going to loose money.  Do you think they're going to roll-over and say "ok, no problem, here you go mister president".  Really, do you think so?  It may be tough at first but I'm sure Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates are true patriots and won't any problems giving up 99% of their money.

     Let's look at military pay scales; you all know I'm a military guy so what would this do to them?  When someone starts in the military their income level is relatively low. As people become more proficient in their job they get promoted which always means more income but also means more responsibility.  I recruit with a few weeks in sure doesn't have the same experience level as a general with years and years of service so we pay those generals more as a way of recognizing that fact.  Under wealth equality that recruit would make the same amount of money as the general with a whole lot less responsibility, so why should he try to move up? Wouldn't human nature and common sense take over to tell the recruit there no reason to move up?  At some point in time pride in wanting to advance is stripped  by wealth re-distribution.  One would ask why someone would even join the military, why not just stay home and collect our $60K.  No one said you had to work to get it.

     Wealth re-distribution is a scheme that will destroy America as we know it.  It will kill worker incentive, stifle growth, and ruin our economy.  In the onset, anarchy would ensue as over 50% of Americans would have their money stripped from them which would probably create massive immigration to other countries.  Total decimation of our military forces would be experienced which would eventually lead to the destruction of the United States as we know it.  Those of us that would try to fight it would most likely be left with nothing.  Our country we are so proud of, the country we fought and died for would be gone just because a few people were too lazy to get ahead on their own.
     I know these ideas are pretty far fetched but they could become reality if they're not stopped.  How do we stop them though once they start?  I don't know how they will stop but I know where they will stop.  They will still in the ballot box.  People don't want this type of America and will stop it by voting in people who will stop this slippery slope.  We'd better stop it quick though before things get too bad; after all, who wants to be President when it only pay's $60K a year?

Barney Frank - Typical Liberal Democrat

Check out this article: They Said It! Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) On Increasing Taxes And Cutting Defense Spending

Just another example of why Mr. Frank needs to resign in shame. The tried and failed Democrat practices of tax and spend would be a little more palatable if they spent it where we need it. Nope, these idiots would rather put it in some welfare project thus encouraging people to rely more and more on them. Their power is based on their constituents laziness.

Who's more ready, Palin or Biden?

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough decisions..."

"But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going 'oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough? We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us.” Joe Biden, October 19, 2008

And they talk about Sara Palin not being ready… Wow where do I start?  I know that many folks have tried to read into this comment as some kind of prophecy by Senator Biden on what will happen if Obama is elected.  In reality almost every newly elected President faces some kind of international crisis early in their administration, so I’m not going to go there.  What I do find troubling is the numerous references to people not seeing the decisions they plan to make as valid. “Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.” Ok, so we already had concerns that they don’t know what they’re doing and the VP candidate says it’s not going to be apparent that they’re right?  After the events of 9-11-2001 President Bush put into place several reactions to the attacks and with very few exceptions people looked at those reactions as correct.  Who didn’t?  The most left of the flaming liberals!  So what would a President Obama done different?  Would he “turn the other cheek”?  Would he tell the country and Al Qaeda to show “restraint” as he did with Georgia and Russia?  Had that happened your damn right I would has questions what they were doing.  Is this the type of reaction Senator Biden was warning his supporters of?  Thanks God we had decisive and clear leadership during that crisis that rallied the country; a leadership whose decisions were not questioned and seemed sound by the majority of Americans.

Another point I had problems with is that he used some examples as failures in our foreign policy as examples of what we should not do. Folks: Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia all where Clinton issues!  Is he saying that his party mishandled those crisis’s?  That’s pretty ballsy to bring up your own sides failures as examples of how NOT to be.  Failures that were directly affected by the Senators own inputs to the administration.  So I guess by his own admission the failures in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia are all a direct reflection of his own decisions and influences.  And they say that Sara Palin isn’t qualified!  Joe Biden has proved numerous times his own level of incompetency and, of the four candidates, should be the LAST person to say he’s qualified to be president.  The way I see it, if Obama is elected we can look forward to 4 years of questionable decisions and international failures. In this day and time with all the other looming issues we’re dealing with do you really think this is the way the country should go? I don’t.

Scared of Sara Palin? Are you or are you just scared of what she brings to the table?

This is a repost of something I’d written a few days ago.  I had pulled it when a friend of mine pointed out that the website I used had some rather extreme views towards conservatism; things that I don’t agree with.  While I’m still using my original cite, this does not in any way mean that I support the rest of the information on the website.  The only reason I’m linking it is because I didn’t write it.  So as you read it don’t try to tie anything in except what is written here.

Recently I received an e-mail from one of my nieces regarding the upcoming election. Now my niece is a staunch Democrat who loves to have spirited conversations regarding politics.  Since her and my political ideas differ... well lets just say we agree to disagree on many topics. However; in this e-mail she made a statement I found intriguing; she said "McCain really isn't that bad. It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if he won. It's Gov Palin I have the problem with". It made me think about how many times I had heard this and thing similar regarding our Alaskan Governor, some folks even gone so far to state that they are scared of Gov. Palin becoming the VP; how interesting. 

Why someone would be scared of the VP choice but not with the President? Could it be that it's not the individual they're scared of but the ideas they’ve publicly stood for? It's no shock to anyone that Senator McCain isn't the most conservative of Republicans but Sara Palin is a strong conservative. This made me wonder if maybe what people are really expressing fear of is the adoption of conservatism and conservative values.  Most likely this is the case since these values go against many of the liberal ideas the Democrat party has adopted even though conservatism isn't limited to any single party.  What are these enigmatic values people are scared of? When someone says they are conservative, what are they saying about themselves? The answers to these questions are the reason people are scared of Sara Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the late Ronald Reagan. Not because enacting these values will cause doom and gloom for the country more that they will end the lifestyle they have so lazily adopted. Let’s take a look at what conservative values are and then I will explain more what I'm talking about.

 According to the “Conservpedia”, conservative values are defined as follows:

 1. Placing ideas and principles above personal desire, weaknesses, fears and regrets

This is called personal responsibility.

 2. A never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all

Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when the truth is that your lazy

 3. Recognizing and utilizing the benefits of competition and hard work

Hard work is not defined as a handout, welfare, or government entitlement.

 4. Emphasizing charity, with its unexpected benefits, rather than compulsory tax-and-spend programs

Charity begins at home, NOT in Washington

 5. Teaching self-help rather than dependence on government and others

While conservatives don't like handouts we do know that sometimes people need help. What better way to promote conservatism brings to the table than to teach someone to be self sufficient?

 6. Supporting self-defense

On a grand scale; promoting a strong military, on a small scale; supporting the right to bear arms.

 7. Recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception.

This goes back to something I've said many many times.  Be an informed voter!

 8. Frugality and efficiency

This is pure fiscal conservatism. Can you say "blue dog" democrats! 

 9. Rejecting the deification of government officials

We're all humans folks, no one is any better than anyone else.

 10. Downplaying significance of wealth, disparities in wealth, and materialism in general

This is a hard pill for liberals to buy into but some people are going to be more well off than others, don't make people pay publicly for their private success.

 11. Emphasizing self-reliance and being able to keep the fruits of one's labor.

Work hard for what you have so that you can make yourself better, not to share with someone who isn't working as hard.

 12. Emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities

Stop the politics of personal destruction and recognize people for who they are.

 13. Recognizing the power of the free market

Don't confuse Wall street with this concept. Free market in regards to promoting competition and ingenuity to promote growth.

 14. Understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. tax cuts benefit all.

This is a tried and true philosophy that Reagan called "trickle-down economics".  Taxes burden everyone no matter how you slice them.  Fewer taxes promote more growth which ends in higher revenue.  Too many times people confuse revenue with taxes, we want maximum revenue with minimal taxes.

 15. Self-control as opposed to a self-indulgent search for instant gratification of desires.

Basically this is greed.  Too many times people let greed and instant cash guide their decision making and loose they're long term vision.  It's a slippery slope that only discipline and clear headiness can forestall.

Have you noted folks that I've not mentioned the differences in the parties when I explained what these values mean?  That is because they transcend political parties.  Sure there are conservative Republicans but there are also conservative Democrats.  So the next time someone says they are scared of Gov. Palin ask them why.  Most likely their going to spout out some tripe about being against one of these conservative values thus proving themselves nothing more than liberal mouthpieces.  Democrats don't need to be scared of Sara but I would say that liberals should be shaking in their shoes.

I not raising hogs...

I got this e-mail from a friend and I know it's fiction but if our more liberal officials get their way, some savvy farmer may take advantage.  Read on...  :)

Dear Sir; 

My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Wells Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.

As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs.

If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.

Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?

Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too.

In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps. Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.

Patriotically Yours,

P.S. Would you please notify me when you plan to distribute more free cheese.

Predator Pilot Video

I saw this on Chairforce.  Hilarious!

Palin for President?

We all need to sit back and laugh at ourselves sometimes.  Check this out and remember to click on all the little things. :)

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

Originally posted at IBD Editorials (Funny)

O'Reilly was right, Barney Frank is to Blame!

While we’re not out of this mess yet, the investigative dust is starting to settle.  In the Wall Street Journal article “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess”, Charles W. Calomiris and Peter J. Wallison do a great job outlining how we got into this mess.  It seems that back when we had a Republican controlled congress some fairly savvy congressmen saw this looming disaster and tried to enact legislation to stop it.  Well they were unable to pass the proposals due to staunch partisan Democrat opposition centering around their socialist attitude towards financial equality.  The Democrat scheme to increase sub-prime loans as a method to create “affordable housing” would have been stopped by this bill or at least would have added some sanity to the lending practice.  After the power swap as a result of the last election, the Republicans concern on this matter was squelched and the impending Democrat created train-wreck that we’re dealing with now is the result. 

As I said in my earlier post, there’s little we can do at out levels to make a difference in how we proceed.  The one thing we have, the one thing we should cherish is our vote.  You cannot imagine how important your one vote is.  We need to vote these idiots out of power so we can get some sanity back in our government.  Who voted to create this mess?  Who sat there in those hearings a few years ago and said there wasn’t a problem?  As the flashlight of blame focuses its beam who will be highlighted the most?  Those are the folks that we should be removing and the first one to leave should be Barney Frank.  I ask you right now Mr. Frank, resign your position and take responsibility for your action.  You should be in prison for the mess you have created for the rest of us in this country to clean up.

In the article they talk about folks on both sides of this fight.  Yes, both candidates are mentioned; John McCain tried to get the legislation passed, Barack Obama did his normal and sat on the sidelines doing nothing. There’s a few other names mentioned but I would assume that all of the current Democrat leadership is responsible as well as some Republicans.  I haven’t had time to research the names but when I find them I will post them so we can boot these folks so they don’t ruin our future any more.  Fiscal conservatism is bi-partisan and an attribute claimed by both sides of the fence.  We need that attitude back in Washington. 

Bailout Bill Voting Record

We all here about the votes in Washington but do you really know who voted which way? Recently we had a vote on the Wall Street bailout bill; something that I was against.  You might find it interesting who voted for or against the bill (I know I did).  Below are the results for Texas but you can check out the complete list at the Senate and House website.

Senate overall vote:  Yea - 74         Nay - 25          Not Voted - 1

• Cornyn (R-TX), Yea  
• Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

House overall vote: Yea - 263       Nay - 171

Yea:    Republican – 6         Democrat - 9

• Kevin Brady (R)
• Michael Conaway (R)
• Henry Cuellar (D)
• Chet Edwards (D)
• Charles Gonzalez (D)
• Kay Granger (R)
• Al Green (D)
• Ruben Hinojosa (D)
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D)
• Eddie Johnson (D)
• Solomon Ortiz (D)
• Silvestre Reyes (D)
• Pete Sessions (R)
• Lamar Smith (R)
• Mac Thornberry (R)

Nay:    Republican – 13       Democrat – 4

• Joe Barton (R)
• Michael Burgess (R)
• John Carter (R)
• John Culberson (R)
• Lloyd Doggett (D)
• Louie Gohmert (R)
• Gene Green (D)
• Ralph Hall (R)
• Jeb Hensarling (R)
• Sam Johnson (R)
• Nicholas Lampson (D)
• Kenny Marchant (R)
• Michael McCaul (R)
• Randy Neugebauer (R)
• Ron Paul (R)
• Ted Poe (R)
• Ciro Rodriguez (D)

Repeatedly in this blog I have urged you to be an educated voter.  While I do care which way you vote, when you vote I think you should be informed as to what your voting for.  Your vote is your decision but make that decision for the right reason.  Now in case you didn't figure it out I normally vote Republican but sometimes I vote outside of the party for various reasons.  This bill is one of those reasons.  I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who voted for this bill.  The bill pushes us closer to the precipice of socialism while I think we should be decreasing government involvement in our life.   We are a free market economy, we tout that philosophy around the world as the best way to be and punish those that disagree with us.  One of the prime tenets of a free market economy is that the value of the market is a direct reflection of the true value of it workers and businesses.  With us bailing out all these businesses we’re telling the world that our plan works “most” of the time but when it doesn't governments should step in.  Is this the message we want to tell the world?  Isn’t this what happens in a socialist society?  A strong government is an indicator of a strong economy but a government can’t create a strong economy, we do (the people).  I disagree with the doom and gloom forecasts that we were warned of.  I think we had some “chicken little” leaders who failed to correctly read the tea-leaves of markets.  Now we’re stuck with even more debt, even more government controls, and even more foreign influence in our country.  We should have let the market do what it was going to do and picked up the pieces when it was over.  That’s what we’ve done before and we were stronger because of it. 

If you agree with me then look at who voted for this socialist regulation and get them out of office.  Our country can recover but we need sound and strong leadership to do it, NOT the cowards who forced this crap onto us. 

Obama + Odinka + Ayers + Wright + ????

On my way home from work today I caught a snipit from Hannity regarding the ousting of writer Jerome Corsi from Kenya. Mr Corsi was in Kenya researching facts for his book "The Obama Nation" and apparently stepped on a few toes and was "asked" to leave. So what was the problem?  What was mr Corsi researching?  Well during the interview Mr Corsi went on to tell Sean that he was researching the connection between Senator Barack Obama and Mr Raila Odinga, the Prime Minister of Kenya.  Sounds legitimate enough right?  Well as usual once you peal the onion, things start getting a disconcerting.  Here is a Youtube video of a CNN broadcast regarding Mr Odinga:

The video explains fairly well that Mr Odinga reputation isn't the best in the world but that's the way things are in some parts of the world.  You have to ask yourself though, do we want that type of action here in the United States?  Check out Mr Odinga's own website: Don't worry to much with the rhetoric but look at what's written, doesn't this look eerily like Obama's campagn adds?  Change Change Change!  Mr Corsi told Sean Hannity that there where high level communications between Mr Odinga's 2007 campaign and Senator Obama's campaign.  I think it's probably so, the proof is all over both of their slogans and talking points.  So what else did Mr Obama learn from Odinga?  How about the aftermath when Odinga lost the election?  There's already talk of this possibility; after last nights debate James Carvel on CNN expressed this very concern.

Between the connection with ex-Weathermen Bill Ayers, wanna-be dictator Raila Odinga, and whacko preacher Jeremiah Wright; Barack Obama has some pretty radical friends. It makes me wonder who else is waiting in the wings.  What other radical group does Mr Obama have connections with?  In one of the debates Mr Obama told us that he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea with out preconditions.  Why would he do that when he knows these are self expressed enemy's of our country all of which seek the downfall of our country.  This country does not and should not conduct a foreign policy that legitimizes governments hellbent on our downfall.  But based on all these other associations Mr Obama has had in his life why wouldn't he also seek out the guidance of the rest of the worlds radicals. 

This is a track record that needs to be explored in Senator Obama.  His past actions and associations are indicators on how he will lead our country and with whom he will seek guidance on how to do it.  I've said this before and I will say it again.  Don't vote on passion, vote on facts.  Do the research on the person you want to vote for and let your conscience be your guide.