ThePhalanx.com

The failure of politicians

2009-06-10T10:21:00.001-04:00

The problem with most Americans is we have extremely short attention spans. Before long we forget our past experiences as we seek convenience and instant gratification. The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 is a perfect example of the incredibly short attention spans we have. Some Americans foolishly believe that 9/11 was the first time America was the victim of a terror attack, as if the previous 3 decades had never taken place. Given this reality it should come as no surprise that we keep turn to the same politicians to "save us" from ourselves.

Today the principle problem is we have two groups of people: Liberal Democrats, who rehash the same failed ideas whenever they get into power and Conservative Republicans who do the same thing. This problem is especially acute when one side gains complete control as the Republicans had for the previous 6 years and as the Democrats do now. The old adage is certainly true: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This power goes straight to their head and they misinterpret the outcome of these elections as a mandate for their unceasing passion to control as many and as much as possible through governance.

Frankly the last two presidents (Obama and Bush) have been great disappointments. It took me a few years to become completely disgusted with Bush, but Obama surpassed that record, accomplishing the same in only 6 months.It is truly amazing how uninformed the average citizen seems to be. Anyone who thinks either of these parties has an answer for anything is blind or perhaps a fool...what a fool believes.

Both sides seek to concentrate as much power in Washington as is humanly possible, not for anyone's benefit but that of the politician. Both sides have come to view themselves as mythic almost God like figures...our presidents live in mansions with thousands of servants and special anthems and formal titles. Our congressmen and women are inaccessible and view themselves as above the law. Do we have a monarchy and a nobility or is this a republic?

You people defending Obama and the Democrats or the Republicans are sad, when everything they have done, everything they have touched for decades has been a colossal failure. It is only because of the ingenuity of everyday Americans working hard to support their families, starting small business and so forth that this country hasn't already collapsed.

If this be treason....

2009-06-03T08:33:00.002-04:00

For those who don't know her, Cynthia Tucker is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The AJC like many other large newspapers leans to the left (as does Ms Tucker) and has suffered declining readership for some time.

In the mind of Cynthia Tucker, recent grumblings of secession by GOP gubernatorial hopefuls, is treason. In fact such treachery is inspired by no other reason than the election of our nation's first Black president. The racial implications not withstanding, the assertion that only a traitor would embrace the dormant notion of secession is ludicrous. Is Ms. Tucker familiar with the once cherished principle of "consent of the governed" or perhaps she has forgotten the notion of
"self-determination" and long ignored is the concept of "freedom of choice."

Granted these GOP politicians speak more of secession in the hopes of gaining political traction in a period where Republican governance in Georgia has left much to be desired, but in their politicking they have touched on a truism that is no less relevant today than in was when the United States was in its infancy and that truth is the inescapable fact that all people are born free and should be free to choose their government and its leaders.

Our loyalty should NOT be to the United States as an entity but to the ideals this nation supposedly upholds and cherishes. If those ideals were to be abandoned by the nation, who would dare question a person's desire to break free of such tyranny. While no one is arguing that the United States has degenerated into dictatorship it has for some ventured far beyond its desired framework. While some might view the direction our country has taken as necessary and perhaps benevolent, is it no less tyrannical to impel someone's participation when it conflicts with their own sense of freedom. Throughout history there have been many nations who have, at the point of the sword (and later the gun) forced people to live under their rule, regardless of their consent, nations like the Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind. And that
is indeed tyranny.

Is it treason to want to choose your own path if you feel the choices of others are not to your liking, is it treason to believe as John Locke did that a government lacks legitimacy without the consent of the governed? Is it treason to resist having someone else's will imposed upon you? if it is, then one must remember the immortal words of Patrick Henry: "...if this be treason, make the most of it."

Links:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/05/27/tucked0527.html

Enemy of Constitution to be replaced with bitter enemy of Constitution

2009-05-02T08:45:00.003-04:00

Justice David Souter has announced has announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court at the end of the 2008-09 term. For those who cherish freedom and abhor government intrusion, Souter decision must be looked upon with bitter sweet as his replacement is likely to be an even greater enemy of our Constitution. And while our Constitution was supposed to be the foundation upon which our federalist system would rest, it has become nothing more than a sandy plain, ignored whenever it is convenient.

The illustrious Barack Obama is sure to replace Souter with someone who will continue the courts recent trend of citing foreign court decisions and using "contemporary" standards, when weighing court actions, rather than using the Constitution itself as the pillar of our representative government.

Indeed, media reports have heaped praise upon Souter, citing his independence and his being a champion of the rule of law. Such prognostications are inaccurate. Souter has also been equally vilified and cheered for decisions rendered on school prayer and abortion. If these are the issues conservatives find so abhorrent about Souter then it should come as no surprise that the GOP is on the outs. School prayer, for example is the non-issue of this or any other century.

Clearly, public schools should not be a place for religious instruction or prayer, at least insofar as when it is organized by school representatives, who in turn are representatives of the government, a clear violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment. No this is not a decision that Souter should be remembered for or vilified. Souter should be remembered for the outrageous Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo vs. New London, in that case the court declared Constitutional the act of seizing private property (under eminent domain) and giving that property to other private citizens as a means to boost tax revenue, citing the public use clause found in the fifth amendment. On that day the principal of private property (all ready on shaky ground by the mere existence of eminent domain statutes and property tax schemes) became virtually non-existent.

Under the Obama presidency when can expect the replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens to follow the same anti-constitutional track as they increase the power of an already intrusive federal government at the expense of the states. Indeed, the irony is practically unfathomable, considering that it is often reported that Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, what nonsense, Obama has made a career of ignoring said document, perhaps that was what he taught and now with Souter's announcement we have heard repeatedly that Souter is a scholar of Constitutional history, for what purpose, so he would have a better understanding of what to disregard.

Links
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7483045&page=1

If only GM had listened to the Phalanx...

2009-04-27T22:34:00.003-04:00

Several years ago, the Phalanx offered up its own strategy for turning around the ailing General Motors, unfortunately for the boys in Detroit, our advice was ignored until now...lets hope GM can learn its lesson before the entire company is no more...

Previous Entry:
GM's turnaround plan Phalanx style
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/04/gms-turnaround-planphalanx-style.html

Swine flu and a government of folly

2009-04-27T09:21:00.000-04:00

The Swine Flu has presented itself as a major test for the administration in Washington. No it's not 1975 and the inept Ford administration, it's 2009 and the grossly inept Obama administration.

Here we have yet another test of President Obama's leadership team and once again the failures are glaring.

This far thousands of cases of Swine Flu have been reported in Mexico and well over 5% of those have died, yet Obama's crisis team has failed to take decisive action. For a man who firmly believes in government intervention in almost every aspect of society it is truly perplexing that Obama has failed to intervene where it is entirely Cobstitutional and appropriate.

One need only ask the president why appropriate precautionary steps aren't being taken. Why are tracelers from Mexico not being screened? Why does the border remain open? If ever there were a time to secure our extremely porous border this is it, but alas the savior of our republic has proven yet again that he is nothing more than the key to our undoing.

Garofalo: Blacks can't think for themselves...

2009-04-18T11:23:00.003-04:00

Actress and part-time political Janeane Garofalo has weighed on the recent tax day protests that occurred across the United States. According to Garofalo the protests had nothing to do with Obama's tax policies or out of control Congressional spending, nor is it an objective to Obama's state-centric policies, no if you were a participant in the recent tax day "Tea Parties" you are nothing more than a "racist" and a "red-neck." Those participants were only there because a black man was in the White House and for no other reason, presumably we can also conclude that she would assert that anyone voting against Obama is also a racist. One must therefore ask whether the same people who have opposed white leftists (such as the frighteningly left of center, Jhn Kerry) are also racists?

Such intelligent discourse demonstrates the ordeal of modern day leftist. Rather than engage in an actual dialogue on policy, Garofalo like many leftist resorts to dismissive name calling, the likes of which would make hardened fascists like Joesph Goebbels proud.

Perhaps even most ironic is the realization that Garofalo's prognostication on racist protesters was racist in and of itself. Garofalo asserted that any black person attending the recent Tea Parties must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, in other words no black person in their right mind could possibly oppose another black person, and therefore must be somehow brainwashed. After-all all blacks surely must think a like, they all watch the same movies and television programs, they all listen to the same music, they all share the same values and beliefs and they all share the same political views. The unbelievable bigotry of Garofalo's statement is beyond the pale, but in no way surprising.

We must bear in mind that the true bigots are the American left and their paternalistic attitude to minorities and other groups, a mind set more akin to the slave masters of yore who asserted that they were acting in he best interests of their slaves, that they and they alone knew best. Garofalo's intellectually dishonest bigoted tirade only further illustrates this mindset.

Links:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/17/janeane-garafalo-says-tea-parties-were-for-rednecks/

Other relevant posts:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2008/10/not-this-time.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/democrats-show-their-true-colors-or.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/11/racial-hypocrisy-of-left-in-maryland.html

The "S" word...

2009-04-16T18:55:00.002-04:00

The S word is on the minds of many politicos today and well it should be. Texas Governor Rick Perry has suggested that Texas could once again become the Republic of Texas and perhaps they should and perhaps any other state that truly cherished the freedom our national government abhors.

Loyalty to country is a wonderful thing but first our first loyalty should be to life, liberty and property, two of which (if not all) are under assault in Obama's America. If our nation is no longer willing to secure the blessings of liberty to which we are all entitled, if our nation no longer embraces the Renaissance concept of consent of the governed then what ate we truly being loyal to? Our country may already be no more, replaced by tyranny disguised as representative government, one where dissent is ridiculed and ignored, one where the interests of elites are cherished and everyday citizens are trampled.

We are living in what may well be the twilight of our union and if it be so then hurrah for secession and disunion our last best hope for liberty.

Links:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Perry_Tea_Party.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JO2700&show_article=1

Agressors have tacken full measure of President Obama

2009-04-10T09:51:00.003-04:00

If someone were forced to describe President Barack Obama using ten words or less, an objective person might very well use the following terms to describe Obama and his train wreck of a presidency.

vacillating
weak
indecisive
underwhelming
arrogant
perfunctory
self-absorbed
ill-prepared
adulation-obsessed
irresolute

This has been apparent in virtually all of his dealings and now let the world witness the colossal embarrassment that is the open act of piracy on the high seas, the first such attack on America shipping since the Barbary Wars, 200 years earlier. Indeed, presidents Jefferson and Madison were far more decisive in their actions, from a relative position of weakness than Obama has been from a position of strength, thus inviting yet more aggression. There can be no doubt that these pirates can read the writing on the wall, and clearly recognize that they only stand to gain by attack Americans so long as Barack Obama is in the White House.

Over the next four years we can expect such brazen aggression against the United States to continue as our new found weakness is readily apparent to anyone who witnesses the humiliating stature of our new president.

Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/10/somalia.u.s.ship/index.html

We are safer?

2009-04-08T11:56:00.000-04:00

According to Vice President [sic] Joe Biden, the millionaire who gave a few hundred to charity in the past year and who says we should all pay more in taxes as our patriotic duty, has given the eager public yet another pearl of wisdom.

According to Biden, America is safer today than at any point during the past 8 years. Biden was responding to criticism from former VP Dick Cheney, who asserted the truism of the current threat facing the US.

Biden, however, thinks Team Obama has worked to secure American security. Based on what? By what measure is the US safer? Regardless of what you may think of President Bush, and his many obvious short comings, no one in their right mind can utter such drivel as to argue that Obama has made America a safer place.

There is absolutely NOTHING Obama has done to further American security. He has koetowed to tyrants across the globe. He has offered to appease Iran and looked the other way as North Korea has launched yet another missile threatening the Pacific. He has moved to gut various defense systems and yet Joe Biden has the audacity to lie to the face of the American people that we are somehow safer.

History has shown us repeatedly that appeasement to tyrants invited aggression and that is all Obama has given us. Everyone who has played a role in electing this man has placed this country in great danger.

The intelligence factor...

2009-03-05T17:15:00.000-05:00

Does anyone in his right mind truly believe that President Obama has the intelligence, the skill and common sense to administer our Republic.

What sense does it make to attack with impunity every single industry that has been an engine of job growth in America. With each passing day the incompetent Obama Administration proposed yet another tax. The president's fascist regime has called for tax policies that discourage charitable giving. They have proposed taxing employer health benefits. They have proposed new taxes on small businesses. They have called for more taxes cellular phones. They have called for new penalitirs on the rapidly fading auto industry. They have pushed for new oil and gas taxes. And with each day the list grows longer.

This president, who promised hope has delivered only dispair. His every utterance causes the nation's stock markets to tumble yet Obama and company respond only with contempt, likening the stock market to some type of tracking poll. His aides declare that Obama's top priority are not the folks on Wall Street, but it's the nations middle class that is being destroyed by market girations.

Everyone who voted for this disgrace of a president should be ashamed.

Look out Bush 43...the worst president of the 21st century is...

2009-02-05T23:59:00.002-05:00

The catastrophe that is the Obama Administration continues unabated and it hasn't even been a month. Obama hissy fit of a tantrum (ie, press conference) to assail those who have the audacity to question the wisdom of his proposed "stiumulus" plan only furthers the appearance of an unquestionable despot.

Here we have a president moving to transfer all indivividual freedom and responsibility to the federal government. Can we even call this a "federal" government, is it not a unitary government at this stage. Now we have a government spending nearly $1 trillion in tax payer dollars on an assortment of programs, to stimulate the growth of government and nothing more.

This unitary government has also moved to introduce an assortment of new federally mandated programs, which the states will be compelled to finance for years to come.

During President Obama's official hissy fit conference the presient derided those with the "same old tired" arguments. Essentially anyone who favors fiscal responsibility or doesn't think spending billions on condoms and cars for washington bureacrats is making tired old arguments.

A good bit of advice for any American who still cares about this country: When a politician dictates to you that something must be done "immediately" you can rest assured it will only benefit the politician and this "government stimulus" plan is certainly no exception.

A Republic or Kingdom

2009-01-25T19:30:00.000-05:00

After watching the inaugural activities last week, one has to wonder what has become of our republic or whether one can even call the US a republic.

The founders of the republic envisioned a nation free of nobility and aristocracy, free of titles and equal opportunity. As our nation has matured we have seen a culture that is easily swayed by celebrity and demagoguery. The case of the presidency is only one of many examples. This is no diatribe against the presidency of Barack Obama. Obama is no different than the 43 presidents who preceded him.

The inauguration of our current president cost over $150 million, including parades, specially designed podiums, serenades by various chorales and all the pomp and circumstance befitting a monarch. Our esteemed leaders are treated more like monarchs with their own special seal and even a theme song. The entire charade is enough to make any true champion of representative goverenment gag.

The deed is done

2009-01-20T21:18:00.000-05:00

The deed is now done. Barack Obama has taken the reigns as the nation's 44th chief executive. The implications fir our nation are great but in reality we can trust that the nation's 100 year march toward a complete centralization of government authority, which began during the so called Progressive era is sure to continue.

Obama has promised trillions in deficits and an assortment of government programs which promise to greatly expand government at the expense of individual government, but alas we get the government we deserve and given the reality that so many Americans have chosen a politically dangerous statist it seems America's epitaph may have already been written.

So this is Christmas...

2008-12-27T18:24:00.002-05:00

Another year over and an economy in shambles, a government expanding by leaps and bounds with one industry after another seeking (and receiving) government aid.

Now, to matters worse, the president most responsible for the expansion of federal authority (Bush) is set to cede power to the country's first socialist president (Obama), who is destined to outdo him thanks to the overwhelming leftist majority in Congress.

Already, Obama is speaking of a virtual alphabet soup of expansionist programs to "help" the economy. These programs are more likely to help leftist politicians maintain their wealth and power. Inevitably, these programs will be about as successful the WPA. The one thing that could actual help the economy, such as a massive across the board tax decrease, will not even be entertained by a leftist government determined to remove every basic decision from the hands of individual citizens.

The ever expanding bailout

2008-11-17T19:10:00.000-05:00

For years a growing number of Americans have embraced the philosophy that is the burden of the federal government to solve our problems, including those that were self created.

As time has progressed that philosophy has been embraced by both major parties, businesses and private citizens alike. The recent passage of the $700 billion government bailout package only serves to re-emphasize this fact. Now a growing chorus of politicans are calling for a bailout of General Motors.

If this GM bailout is passed can there be any doubt that the principle of individual freedom and personal responsibility are dead concepts in America? Exactly what kind of message are we sending to future generations of Americans? Is the message that we are free to make irresponsible decisions without consequence, as GM has done? Perhaps such a reality shouldn't come as a surprise, given Americas recent enthusiastic embrace of Senator Government and his Marxist agenda of redistributive government.

Dial "M" for Obama?

2008-10-25T19:00:00.002-04:00

There is no question that with each passing election, this country moves further and further to the left. With the potential election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, this 100 year transition from a free market, self-reliant country to centralized Marxist state will be virtually complete. There can be little doubt, given Obama's associations and public professions that Obama embraces Marxist philosophy.

Obama's statement to ABC's Charles Gibson that its "fairer" to raise taxes even if it means less government certainly highlights Obama's view taht wealth belongs to the state, not individuals. This certainly was confirmed when Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wants to "spread the wealth around," which further confirms Obama's belief in the supremacy of the state at the expense of individual rights, especially when it comes to the fruits of our own labors. This Marxist connection is concealed in colorful messages of "Hope" and "Change." To be certyain change is on the horizon...the change is more akin to that of Soviet Russia than what we are used to in America.

Alas for our country?

2008-10-24T11:29:00.002-04:00

A leftist politician can always be taken at his word, insofar as it relates to the issue of taxes...If Senator Obama vows to raises taxes you can rest assured he will raise taxes on most Americans, in spite of professions to the contrary. Lest we forget, Clinton ran on a pledge to cut middle class taxes and gave America the largest tax increase in history. We can be assured that taxes on large businesses, small businesses, savings, investments and energy will prove crippling. But for those undecidied voters out there you needn't concern yourself, so long as you are retired and have vast stores of wealth with no income, those are the only people who will NOT be adversely affected by Obamanomics.

Syndicated Libertarian Radio Host, Neal Boortz, has an excellent message to all those undecidied voters who are inexplicably on the fence:

TO THE UNDECIDED VOTER

By Neal Boortz
© 2008 Neal Boortz

This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.

I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.

The Race Factor

Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it's well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they're ambitions and talented. But I don't think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn't be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama's ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America's biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can't remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's, though not universal, was something to behold.

Now .. try, though you won't succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: "If my grandfather had only lived to see this." It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It's understandable.

And Then There's the Race Card

This really isn't really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:

Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist.
"Community organizer" is a racist term.
Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist ... that would be because Raines is black.
All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.
Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.
For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean."
This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black.

And so it goes. We've also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don't vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he's black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you're a racist. Simple as that.

Now let's consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming "racist!" By the end of Obama's first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

The Republicans

One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then ... this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London ... all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

The Republicans don't deserve power in Washington just as you don't deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

Obama's Friends

By "Obama's Friends" we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama's friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don't think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people ... and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.

Obama's varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:

He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood.
I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs.
I didn't know about his history when we started working together
I thought he had been rehabilitated.

Yeah ... I guess it's OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be OK if your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren't in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.

One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn't qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.

Obama's Tax Policies

You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.

Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.

Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.

Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.

Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.

As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?

Does this reflect your philosophy?

Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.

Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.

Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."

What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.

Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?

There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.

Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs

Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?

Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."

OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.

There's your first lie.

So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.

The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!

In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.

That's the second lie. A lie of omission.

Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.

The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.

When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.

The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.

The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.

Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.

Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?

Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.

Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:

[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]

Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200

Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.

As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.

We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.

Signed:

George Miller

Bernard Sanders

Lane Evans

Marcy Kaptur

William J. Coyne

Bob Filner

Martin Olav Sabo

Joe Baca

Dennis J. Kucinich

Fortney Pete Stark

James P. McGovern

Barney Frank

Zoe Lofgren

Calvin M. Dooley

Barbara Lee

Lloyd Doggett

So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.

Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.

When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

The Supreme Court

This is getting to be a bit long. We're over 6,200 words here. So let's end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he's through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.

I'm a lawyer, and I've always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what's "fair." Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.

Let's just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of "fairness" with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama's greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It's one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of "fairness." It's quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

So, dear undecided voters ... as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: "Use wisely your power of choice." There's a lot hanging in the balance.

There. I'm done.
http://boortz.com/nuze/undecided.html

Regardless of these inescapable facts the throngs of Obamites are unlikely to be swayed and it is we the wage earner, child raiser, job creator and energy user who will suffer the consequences...

Our diminishing rights

2008-10-21T12:22:00.000-04:00

The inexorable logic of events dictates that as government expands the expansion comes at the detriment to the populous. Over the course of the past two centuries the federal government (and government in general) has played an increasing role in our daily lives. The paced of this expansion accelerated greatly in the 20th century, particularly during the so-called progressive era.

With the upcoming election, coupled with other recent events, we stand at a period of incredible loss of our most basic rights. Such freedoms soon to be relegated to the dust bin of history include: private property, freedom speech and expression, right to self defense, self government and self determination and freedom of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children's education.

Not this time...

2008-10-17T13:09:00.000-04:00

They're at it again, in reality they never stopped. Who is "they" you ask? They is the American left and once again they are up to their same old tricks. Once again the left is campaigning against voter fraud. Just this week, arch typical leftist Al Sharpton has embarked on a Not this Time bus tour. The implication that in previous elections the leftist candidate lost only because of voter fraud.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary the left continues this tired and dishonest argument. Remember in the leftist mind the only way they loose is because the other side has cheated and now with Obama at the top of the ticket we have a new argument. If you don't vote for Obama you're a racist.

In the mean time, as the left decries voter fraud, who is working overtime to register every child, criminal and dead man to vote? You guessed it. No wonder they are so opposed to voter ID laws. As the leftist mantra goes: vote early and vote often.

Joe don't know Joe and neither does Senator Government

2008-10-16T22:27:00.002-04:00

In a retort to the now famous Joe the Plumber incident, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden claims that he doesn't know anyone that falls into Joe the Plumber's $250,000 per year predicament. Perhaps therein lies the problem. Biden should acquaint himself with the reality of capitalism in America. Sure we here a great deal about Wall Street and Big Oil but 80% of all Americans are employed by small business and teh vast majority of all new jobs being created in America are with small businesses. While the GMs and Wachovias of the country fade into obscurity, its the Joe the Plumbers of the world who are driving the American economy.

Once the Obama plan is implemented many of these small businesses will face increased financial burdens, made worse by the slowing US economy. There can be but one result: Job losses. Exactly who us the brilliant economist advising Senator Government to raise taxes on those who have been creating the bulk of American jobs?

Obamanomics will be the ruination of this economy and the media and an ignorant electorate are making it happen. Those who cherish freedom, economic opportunity and job growth should be grateful that Joe the Plumber exposed Obama's "spread the wealth" plan. Anyone who has a job or wants one soon, would be wise to pay head, unless they are one of those looking to collect a welfare check under Senator Government's new "tax refund" plan.

The cry in the wind...

2008-10-16T16:51:00.000-04:00

In spite of leftist propaganda...it is well documented that several of the other side of the political spectrum had called for regulatory reform long before the bottom fell out of the financial market.

Here again we have further prof of leftist complicity insofar as it relates to a genuine lack of interest in reforming a system that presented lucrative financial incentives for Democrats to do nothing...

The Parable of Senator Government

2008-10-16T16:41:00.000-04:00

First they came for Big Oil, but I didn't speak because I was angry about gas prices and then energy prices went up.

Then they came for Joe the Plumber and other small businesses, but I still didn't speak because I didn't have a small business and I was jealous of those who did. Then I lost my job because I worked for a small business like 80% of Americans.

And then they came for me. I no longer had a job, but it's ok because Senator Government sent me the money he took from Joe, afterall it's important to spread the wealth.

The final stretch...

2008-10-05T16:07:00.000-04:00

The presidential campaign is entering the final stretch and it is now only a question of time. Will it be McCain or Obama.

The true question is of degrees. What degree of government intervention are Americans willing to tolerate. If Obama wins, as he may very well do, the question of statism will be put to rest in perpetuity. If McCain triumphs the tide of statist intervention. Will most certainly continue but the socialist transformation will not be complete as it would with an Obama win.

Both candidates, particularly Obama, have centered their campaigns on the premise that to be succesful they must ensure greater responsibility for the lives of it's people, not unlike an antebellum plantation owner...and that's exactly what we are becoming: slaves to an ever powerful state.

This move towards complete social and economic control has been slow, especially compared with the rapid deterioration of such societies as Western Europe, but this should come as no surprise given their propensity for tyrannical governments.

In America where freedom and individual responsibility has been long cherished this transition has been fat more subtle, beginning in earnest with the the so-called progressive era.

With the election of 2008, we are in the final stretch, not only for this election season but for freedom loving America in general.

Fannie and Freddie

2008-09-29T21:02:00.002-04:00

There is no doubt that easy credit and the ability of unqualified buyers to obtain it and the propensity for mortgage lenders to provide it has created a significant strain on the economy, which will cost the taxpayers billions.

The left, has been quick to blame the GOP, almost entirely for the failure of mortgage giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Speaker Nancy Pelosi certainly said as much prior to today's vote on the Wall Street Rescue package. But as with most things in Washington the issue is a bit more complex.

Indeed, it was the left who opposed reigning in the free wielding tactics of Fannie and Freddie and as a result a collapse was inevitable. In the era of modern media, such a reality is inescapable, save those who refuse to see that which is obvious.

Let the excuses begin...

2008-09-22T12:47:00.001-04:00

Most candidates wait until the outcome of an election before they start making excuses for their lost. Remember the ill-fated election of 2000? Gore didn't start complaining before the votes had been counted that Bush was going to steal the election. No that fantasy began afterward. Kerry didn't warn in the summer of 2004 that he was going to be swift-boated.

Senator Obama, however, and his cronies in the media, have started a new a new trend. They have begun to float rationalizations for any possible Democratic failure in November. The premise is this: If Obama loses, its not because of policy or political philosophy. Its not because he will raise taxes on Small Busineses who employ 80% of all Americans, its not because he will institute rationing of healthcare through state control, or oversee a massive expansion of government entitlements or discourage oil exploration, while simultaneously raising taxes astronomtically. No, if Obama loses its only because he is...Black. Thats right, anyone who votes against this latest Democratic incarnation of re-distributive government couldn't possibly object to anything but his skin color.

This complaint will be repeated loudly and often until this lie has be taken for the truth, in the true sopirit of Joeph Goebbles. This startegy will be used expertly in an obvious attempt to deliegitimize a McCain presidency, even before it begins. Just as the farce of a Gore victory in 2000 was used, skillfully, to delegitimize the presidency of George W. Bush. Lest we forget, the American left cares nothing for the facts, which will be the first casuality in their efforts in a race to teh bottom as they plan their next political comeback. Depend upon it!

Link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/22/2008-09-22_poll_barack_obama_could_lose_six_percent.html