Some liberals live in a bubble

The trouble with Obama is he's lived in a bubble his entire life. According to the Weekly Standard, "The Trouble with Obama" (By Noemie Emery, October 5, 2009), "Obama has spent his entire adult life confined in the bubble of deep blue America -- a place that makes up less than one-fifth of the country -- in blue states, in blue cities, in blue states of mind."

He sees what blue America wants for America, but he fails to see the vision of all of America. He fails to understand what America is all about.

Emery writes:

"His city neighborhoods are the back yards of elite universities; he worked in the ghetto; and he rose in the urban ethnic machine of Chicago: the perfect trifecta of liberal politics, where people's looks, speech, and dress may seem to be varied, but the voting and thinking go only one way. It is a real world, but a small one, and in a real sense misleading; one that sees suburbs and small towns as strange, foreign countries; where centrists are rare, and the right nonexistent; where Bill Ayers really is just a guy from the neighborhood, and where no one and no party disputes that the state is the answer, that 'social justice' demands redistribution, that less wealthy whites cling to God and to guns out of 'bitterness,' and that racist white cops always act 'stupidly' when they are forced to have dealings with blacks.

Obama knows people who make laws, and people who teach law, and people who depend upon help from the government, but few people who make things, or run things, or work in the market economy; in other words, he doesn't know his own country, and has no sense where its center of gravity lies. He seems surprised at the resistance to his agenda: Who knew there were so many millions who are staggered by deficits, who don't see the point of identity politics, and want the state largely out of their lives? Not he, and he still doesn't seem to believe it, viewing the fringe (the far left) as the majority, and the center-right that is the core of the country as a demented fringe element that can be dismissed, condescended to, or shoved off to one side. A man of the world, but not of his country, he is just sensing the depth of his own lack of knowledge. He doesn't seem eager to learn."

Sorry for the large quote, but Emery hits it right on the head. This is not just Emery but many people I've dealt with who were born and raised in the Detroit area, or have at least spent the majority of their adult lives there.

They work for unions. They see people who only have jobs during the summer months and live off the unemployment check the remainder of the year. They only see and hear from people who are from the left, and therefore don't see the real working capitalistic America.

You could say this is the same for people on the right too. Where I live is pretty conservative. Yet conservatives don't expect any more for themselves than they expect for anyone else. Where I want an opportunity to succeed, I want that same opportunity for my fellow Americans.
Liberals like Obama don't see it that way. They want to take away from those who work hard to succeed and give it to the people who who don't succeed. In this sense, those in the rest of the country see blue America as wanting to punish those who succeed to support those who are stuck on the government dole.

Yet Obama doesn't see it that way. People like my liberal friends from Detroit only see blue. They see more than just the blue sky. And this is why Obama sees it okay to make radical changes to our government. He believes it is okay to risk everything, including bankrupting the country, if only he can make America more like socialist Europe.

Feel free to disagree.

Is Obama willing to compromise?

It seems the Obama administration is willing to compromise with republicans in Congress and give in to the idea of co-op insurance options rather than a public take over. I'm not really sure what this means yet, but it sounds much better than what is currently on the table.

However, in a recent oppinion piece in the New York Times Obama wrote: ""In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."

I disagree with this because doing nothing is better than doing something stupid. Sure the insurance programs we have now may not be ideal for everyone, but other than the 48 million uninsured, it's working pretty well (although not perfect).

However, this imperfect system is better than doing something stupid. And by doing something stupid I mean doing something that "might" cause the country to go bankrupt. At least the threat of disaster is important enough for many Americans, as is evident by all the recent protesters.

And, I must say, in all my life I have never seen people on the right so irate about something that they protested before. So, that in mind, I think it's a good thing for Obama to take these people seriously. If that many people are concerned (52% oppose his current plan), it is a noble idea to set aside the proposal for the time being, and allow the debate to continue in the arena of ideas.

So, for the time being, I have to applaud Obama on his willingness to compromise -- if that is what he is willing to do.

Obama might clearly be a Socialist

I like to participate in political discussions with various coworkers, and willing and appropriate patients, without letting them know my political affiliation. I usually sit and listen, and poke the discussion one way or another now and again.

The issue of socialism came up recently. A coworker of mine -- a self declared liberal -- said, "There's all this talk of Obama being a socialist. I don't believe any of it."

So I thought to myself, "Is Obama a socialist?"

Of course I have my opinions, but I don't want to state my non-expert opinion here. However, I picked up a book at the library last week called, "Catastrophe," by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.

I didn't pick up the book to get more one sided bias, but with this specific question in mind. You know no liberal is going to admit to being a socialist any more than a bear is going to admit to not liking meat.

So, being a professional political analyzer, and former political advisor for various politicians, including Bill Clinton, I thought Dick Morris would be in a good position to diagnose the issue of "Is Obama a socialist."

First of all, we have to define socialism. Morris provides the definition here:

In modern geopolitics, the term 'socialist' refers broadly to the Social Democratic ideology followed by the left-leaning political parties of Western Europe, who want to expand the role of government in their countries. They want to establish a broader cradle-to-grave social welfare system and to widen the influence of public institutions."

From there, he goes on to describe how to determine if a nation is socialist, and whether Obama fits this bill:

"The best shorthand to determine where a nation is on the capitalist/socialist scale is to measure how much of it economy is in the public sector -- in other words, what percentage of its GDP comes from government spending. By this measure, the U.S. has ranked well to the right of almost every other major industrialized country in the world, with the sometime exception of Japan.

Pre Obama, he writes, "U.S. Government spending once accounted for 36.4% of our economy, it is now rising to 49% -- sending us soaring past Britain and Germany and nestling in right under France -- the model of a modern socialist democracy."

Morris adds, "So, when it comes to Barrack Obama's spending programs, 'socialist' is no political slur. It's a simple description."

Obama's/Chavez handshake gives credence to thug; and to American bashing book too

Obama had a chance meeting with Hugo Chavez today and Chavez gave Obama an American bashing book. Obama looked at Chavez and gave him a "What's this?" look.

I have trouble imagining Obama didn't know what he was getting, as Obama's good friend William Ayers (the terrororist) hailed Venzuela for teaching Marxism in public schools, and chastising capitalism.

While he would never come right out and say it, Obama is socialist himself who does not put the interests of America before himself (I wrote about this here). I wrote before that he blames American capitalism for all that ailes the world, and this "chance" meeting simply validates my earlier claims. He's also not a proud American. He's a socialist like Hugo Chavez.

We must also note here that after this "chance" meeting this America bashing book moved from 54,295 on Amazon to #2 behind Mark Levin's book promoting American exceptionalism, capitalism, liberty and freedom.

While Obama later cliamed that no harm can come from shaking hands, I think he really meant that, as this book went from miniscule sales to #2 on Amazon. This is exactly what Obama wanted all along.

I'm telling you folks, this man is scary. While he tells his cabinet to tell Americans we should be worried about people in our own country (conservatives like you and me), he's saying we should shake the hands of our enemies abroat -- enemies that have openly said they hate us.

Look, it's easy to make friends with enemies. Sean Hannity could shake the hand of Obama and tell Obama he agrees with everything he stands for. Sean would be instantly popular.

Yet he would be going against his principles, something he's not willing to do. So, in the same respects, it appears to me wrong to give credence to a thug like Chavez, but to Obama, on the other hand, it might seem like a good move as it gives credence to the socialism he really wants for America.

I hope I'm wrong.

Obama's justification of socialism

Obama's speech today was interesting. It was basically an attempt by him to justify the destruction of capitalism.

He said, "We are not out of the woods yet. We will have more job loss and more foreclosures, and more pain before it ends." Of course he doesn't say how long it will last.

If history is any indicator, it will last a long time. The last time the government increased by this much was in response to the stock market crash in 1929, and FDRs new deal failed to put an end to that depression for ten years.

Obama believes that the reason FDR's new deal failed was because he didn't' spend enough fast enough. Which is why, in his speech today, he said, (paraphrasing), "What is happening right now is people aren't spending money, so businesses are suffering. To get the economy rolling again someone has to spend money. So, if the people aren't going to do it, it is the role of the government to spend money in order to get the economy rolling again."

In that sentence, he basically justified the end of capitalism as we know it, because what he described is the opposite of capitalism: it's the growth of socialism. And it has failed every time it has been tried.

Pirates of Somalia are terrorists

By now you know that Captain Richard Phillips was rescued when American naval snipers swiftly used bullets to kill his captors -- wasting nothing. It was an impressive end to an otherwise dangerous mission.

Whether President Obama had a hand in this is open to speculation, yet he should and has done everything in his words to take credit for this. He is the commander in chief, he gave the order to shoot if a life was threatened, and the navy seals followed orders.

This is something that shows the mite of America, whereas no other country could have accomplished what was accomplished here: the bad guys are dead, and all the good guys are now safe.

This is a perfect example that America must not give in to calls by other nations to dumb down our military. We also must not give into calls from our own leaders in Washington to make cuts in our military.

And, most important, we must not as a nation treat these incidences as domestic violence that should be treated as criminal activity by the criminal justice department or military. It must be treated as the terrorist activity it is, and dealt with by the military.

So, Obama made the right decision to call for swift action in rescuing the captain. He said he wanted to negotiate, but if the life of the captain was at stake, swift action should be taken. Negotiations failed, and swift action was taken.

As we learned during the Carter and Clinton administrations foreign policy decisions in North Korea, negotiations with terrorist thugs never work. What they do is empower the terrorist to terrorize more, to kidnap more, so they can get what they want in the end.

Obama must come to the conclusion that these terrorists, like Al Qaeda, are not foreign contingencies, and they are not criminals: they are terrorists.

And there is only one way to deal with terrorists: take them out at their home base. It's time for the American military to go into Somalia and finish a project that was started during the Bush 41 presidency.

More on this tomorrow.

Obama's naive view of WOMD scary

Too bad I don't have as much time as I used to to write about politics, because there certainly is a lot to write about. Like today I just saw on TV that Obama said to Europeans that he wants to end the world of nuclear weapons.

To me that's about as naive as thinking that more gun laws will rid the world of guns. Imagine for a second Obama succeeded at making it nearly impossible for people like you and me to get guns. Say he succeeded in making guns illegal.

Well, guess what. Good guys like you and me may not be able to buy a gun, but bad guys will still be able to get a hold of illegal ones. And, assume even further that there were no guns in the world. People who want to kill will simply resort to knives.

So say Obama succeeds in getting rid of all European and U.S. nuclear weapons. You'd still have people who hate the U.S. -- like Iran and terrorists -- who will do everything in their power to find or create nukes of their own.

Oh, wait! Liberals think the reason people hate us is because of all the power we flaunt. Well, Obama, guess what? Nations hated us long before nukes were invented.

And, since the good guys have no nukes, that would give those bad guys a heck of a lot of power.

How the heck does Obama think the U.S. won the cold war anyway. It certainly wasn't by sending flowers to the U.S.S.R. No. It was by starting an arms race that a communist nation could not possibly win.

Likewise, by building up our war arsenal, no other sane leader would dare mess with the U.S.

Yet Obama wants to dumb down our military, and get rid of all nukes. Sure it sounds like a good idea on the surface. It might make some people feel good, "Yep, we got rid of all nukes."

But such naive thinking will not get rid of all the bad guys. Such naive thinking will do the world no justice. It's true: Obama's navie view of nuclear power is scary.

Obama's fear mongering may cause depression

I'm watching the news every day dazed and amazed, but not surprised, as bad news after bad news after bad news comes out about the economy. It's as though this is a great big "See, I told you so."

It was a year ago that I wrote on this blog that if at any point wall street determines that Obama or Hillary will become president the stock market turn bearish. And, as if I was right on the "bulls-eye" I was right. The economy started in a recession the moment Obama took a leap in the polls.

And the day he was elected the stock market took a dip and it has been dipping ever since. It appears that Obama-mania is bad news for the stock market just as I predicted. But I'm not the only one to make this prediction, as many real economic and wall street experts made the same.

The stock market started going down because the "investors" of this nation knew that Obama's economic policy would punish achievement. He would raise taxes on capital gains (of which he is now proposing), which is basically taxing profits. And, as history has shown, no tax effects investments more so than the capital gains tax; as capital gains taxes increase, the stock market decreases and vice versal.

A perfect example of this was in 1994. Sure Clinton raised taxes, but this was offset by Congress passing, and Clinton approving, a tax cut on capital gains taxes. The stock market continued to soar until just before G.W Bush was elected and the tax hike caught up with the economy and a small recession ensued.

Fear that Obama might raise their taxes has investors bowing out and selling and fearful of purchasing anything new. Fear that their taxes will go up has business owners holding pat on hiring new workers. And that fear may be warranted, as Obama just sent his trillion dollar budget to Congress. It has a trillion dollar tax hike for anyone making $250,000 or more. Of course we smart people know those are the people who do 80% of the hiring.

Obama's economic stimulus plan, and his budget for next year, and his other tax and spend policies of bailing out this failing company and that, has absolutely no incentives for any business to hire more workers.

In Michigan the past eight years businesses have been going to other states or closing their doors because of Granholm's liberal tax and tax and tax some more policies that leave businesses no choice. Granholm's mistakes are now being repeated by Obama.

Bush cut taxes and the economy roared four seven years despite 9-11 and despite other economic disasters that experts predicted would collapse the economy. And, only after bad loans that were encouraged by the government turned into bad assets did the economy tank. Which coincidently coincided with Obama's upsurge in the polls and eventual victory.

Coincidence?

Yet, while Obama inherited a recession, he is turning it into a full blown panic and depression. He single handily has destroyed the economy. He has done so by his words. In every one of his speeches he says words that tear down the economy and create fear from businesses to every household in America and even around the world.

His words are dragging down the economy. And, as Dick Morris writes in his latest column, "It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake."
Morris writes:

"In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world showing the way back to confidence.Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office."

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles...

But the jig will be up soon.

I cannot help but feeling this is a great big "I told you so." Yet, as Obama has done, the blame has shifted back to George W. Bush. But Bush did not hand Obama a depression. If that is where we are headed, it is all on Obama's head.

Thankfully repubs vote no on anticapitalism

This is exactly the headline I wanted to see really bad: "House OKs $819B stimulus bill with GOP opposition."

There is simply way too much pork in this bill that has nothing to do with recovering the economy. And there is way too much spending that won't even take effect until 2010, at which time the economy may well be recovered by then.

So then you'd have all this government spending occurring to save the economy when it's no longer needed. However, that -- I think -- is the whole point of this bill in the first place: the recession is merely an excuse for democrats to create more government programs to trap more people in poverty, because people in poverty (needy people) tend to vote democrat.

When republicans are in office, they do the opposite in an attempt to create wealthy, prosperous people who will, in turn, vote republican.

Which tells you a lot about both parties. Republicans want you to succeed, and democrats want you to fail.

And that is exactly why I think it's important for republicans to oppose this bill. When it fails, which bills like this historically do (I can think no example of which government spending has ever ended a recession), repubs will have the ammo they need to win senate and house seats in 2010.

Realize here that I don't care whether repubs or dems are in power. What I want is people in power who respect the constitution and capitalism.

So much for Obama being a bipartisan president.

Rush Limbaugh versus Obama

I wasn't shocked when I was watching CNN and I heard a commentator say: "Rush said flat out he wants Obama to fail." I turned the channel and heard an MSNBC commentator say the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of what I have written about many times on this blog, that the media twists the news it doesn't like to suit its own liberal agenda.

"If you want Obama to fail," the CNN commentator said, "then you are anti-American."

If, taken in full context, Rush did not say he wants Obama to fail. Rush said he loves his country and he wants the best for it. But if Obama is going to set an agenda that is counter to what would make the country a success, then he cannot hope Obama succeeds.

I agree with Rush and I wrote a similar article on this topic a few days ago.

Rush claims that Obama has no intention of doing what is best for the country. His soul agenda is to pretend to want to help America, but he ultimately wants to create more poor people. The more poor, needy people you have, the more people who will vote for democrats, because democrats thrive on creating government programs under the guise that they will help the poor -- but these programs create more poor.

A perfect example of this is welfare and the war on poverty set forth by president Johnson. What turned out was the more people in poverty, the more people who became dependent on government and thus democrats. The less people in poverty, the more republicans because republicans are the party of success and prosperity.

The New Deal was another perfect example. While every depression before the Great Depression lasted fewer than three years, FDRs lasted for over a decade because of too much government spending -- taking too much out of the pockets of the people who are capable of stimulating the economy (the upper middle class and rich who create 80% of the jobs).

I suppose, Rush himself put it best:

“I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing ‘eternal’ power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.”

You can go back to what I previously wrote about FDR and the economy. I wrote about Hoover and the economy. I wrote a series on this a while back (1950s to 1980s, the 1920s). It is historically proven that never in the history of government has any government pulled a country out of a recession -- only the free market can do that.

(Harding Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush W. all proved this by limiting government and decreasing taxes to pull us out of a recession, while Hoover, FDR, Clinton and Carter did the exact opposite and drove us into a recession or deeper into one with big government programs as obama proposes).

There are many examples how the free market has pulled us out of a recession. Obama believes, as he has said, that only the government can do this. He is naive and wrong. The government succeed only in creating more wasteful government programs and more needy people, and that is what Rush has said the Obama's stimulus package will create. That is a direction he does not want to see America go in. That is against every ideal he (and myself) stand for. And he cannot hope for it to succeed.

Unless, I must add, his stimulus package has across the board tax cuts, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts all of which would definitely (as historically proven) encourage spending, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. This has succeeded every time it has been tried. So why the heck would any government official want to do anything else other than for party gains?

And then you have Obama with the Gall to tell republicans that if they want to listen to Rush they can't deal with him. What the hell does Obama know about the economy anyway? Apparently, he hasn't read his history books as Rush has.

I certainly hope republicans stick it to Obama by refusing to buy int his stimulus plan that calls for welfare checks under the nam of taxes, contraceptives for poor people and more government.

Only the government would take something that has failed every time it's ever been tried and try it again. Any capitalistic business president who did this would be thrown out of office in a month.

I'm sorry, but I do not want the America that Obama is trying to make. I do not want poor people to be dependent on government. I do not want socialized medicine that will ultimately lead to more government and less choice for the people. I do not want an economic stimulus package that will create so much government there will be no hope for tax cuts in the future.

And therefore, if Obama chooses to take this route, I hope he fails. And, when he does fail, republicans will gain seats in the house, Senate and hopefully win back the presidency by 2012.

There, that is my rant for the month. Yet I'm sure the media will continue to twist Rush's words and hail Obamas because the agenda at CNN and MSNBC is no different than Obama's. I keep thinking that CNN is fair, but then I see something like this and it ticks me off.

The media and thinkers are at odds

First we must realize here that Freadom Nation is the perspective of a thinker more so than a politician, economist or whatever you might be thinking. I'm certainly not a mathematician, nor a chemist. And even while my expertise lies in the lungs and the human body, some doctors think my respiratory therapy ideas are quack.

I write, and factuall so, that bronchodilators are only for bronchospasm. But many doctors order it for everything from rickits to just because. It's a simple fact that 90% of the time this medicine is ordered it is not needed. It is due to lack of thinking.

Well, actually, doctors don't think my ideas are quack at all, they simply fail to read anything I write or say. When I tell them about my philosophies, they simply blow me off. And, I imagine, 99.99% of the blogging community does too.

I suppose that's what happens when you think too much, and you analyze, and when you have a belief that facts mean more than, say, a movement. Or, to compare it to the current political situation, the idea of an Obama presidency, for most people, supersedes any philosophical or political views he might hold.

Or, to put in another way, people do not care if Obama is a republican or a democrat, a liberal or a conservative, a socialist or a Muslim. All they care is that he is not Bush. All they care is he is the first black president (I thought Clinton was the first black president??)

Worded another way, most people do not given much thought about the context of what Obama has to offer. They do not care. And that is the exact reason that people like Sean Hannity say 2008 was the year the media died. He says that because while people like Sarah Palin were researched and ridiculed my the media (which is what the media is supposed to do), Obama was asked questions like, "So, how is the family?"

Well, that's all fine and dandy in a free world. But the sole purpose of having a media, the freedom to speak, is to dig deep into topics, find information on political leaders and government, that the political leaders and government officials do not want you to know.

Since Obama stands for everything the media stands for, the media refused to investigate Obama. And I don't think there are many people out there who can refute that claim. It is true. All you need to do is pick up any newspaper article written about Obama in the past couple years and it will be filled with no "media thinking."

Like I said, I am a thinker. What you get on this blog is thinking. And I don't care whether you are a conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, Muslim, libertarian, Morman, Catholic, Peanut Butter Ferry believer, black, white, Mexican-American, illegal alien, or whatever, all people should be treated equal and neutrally in the eyes of the press.

I can have a bias. Each journalist should have a bias. But that bias should not show in the writings outside explicitly politically driven media outlets and editorial articles. When you are telling the news under the guise of unbias, you ought to tell the news fair, balanced and complete.

Which basically means you have to do more than just tell the truth. You have to equally dig into and investigate every character no matter what your beliefs are. And that is exactly why in the past on this blog I think no more highly of Fox News than I do of MSNBC or CNN. The only difference is there is only one Fox (hence the high ratings) and many MSNBCs and CNNs out there. And no one can refute that claim either.

About the only place conservatives have outed the liberals is perhaps in the a.m. radio business, where liberalism has failed to find a voice. But, as a thinker might "assume," the main reason conservatives rule the airways is because liberals rule all the other media outlets (including many local newspapers as my own), and conservative thinkers like myself have no where else to turn.

Mind you that I've also stated many times on this site that no matter what your political view it's good to get your news from more than one source. I think our ancient ancestors came up with that phrase because they knew that no person, no media outlet, no government official, comes without bias.

Yet people who are not thinkers tend to be more willing, able and capable of following a movement that is based on shallow promises (and I'm not just talking about the Obama campaign here either). And are more susceptible to be disappointed in the end.

So this blog is not meant to be a politically driven website. It is meant to be a site that encourages people to think. And to think does not mean you have to put aside opinion. You have to form an opinion. But the greatest way to form an opinion is facts, because facts never lie.

Yet un-thinkers, the one's who are prone to buy into a movement just because, could care less about the facts. People who want to buy into a political belief because it's core goes back to the beginning of man kind are unthinkers.

This is one of the ways our school systems have failed. Instead of having us do multiple choice, they should have more open ended questions that ask: why is this the answer.

Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? When was the last time you asked all of these questions about many of the things you see before you? When was the last time the media fairly asked all these questions about all the things they believe in?

What is liberalism? What is conservatism? Have big government programs ever worked in the past? Did the Indians really save the Pilgrims, and was this the real reason for the first Thanksgiving? Is the Iraq war really necessary? Are there really terrorists out there intent to kill us? Are Biblical Priests really liars intent on brainwashing? Do taxes really generate more income than tax cuts? Is God necessary? Is Bush really a liar? Is Obama really the best man for the job? Was Bush? Did FDR really end the great depression, or did he prolong it? Did Bush lie about WOMD? Is there really a God? Is capitalism really good? Does capitalism even exist? Are democrats and republicans even necessary? Does the media really care about the truth? Does everything a doctor prescribes needed?

I could go on and on. I think way too many people are devoid of the free thinking spirit that we are all capable of.

Do you want Obama to succeed or fail????

A friend of mine asked me the other day, do you want Barrack Obama's economic stimulus package to succeed. I said: "It depends."

He said, "What do you mean , 'It depends.' Either you want America to succeed or you do not."

So I had to explain myself. It went something like this. Now, if you hear other republicans -- or conservatives -- explaining this, you can expect the media to take certain parts of it out of contexts. So, bear with me here.

I want America to succeed. I want my children to live in a prosperous and opportunistic world where they know if you work hard you can be anything you want to be. If you educate yourself and work hard, you can become as rich as you want.

However, if we punish the rich by taxing them, that pretty much takes away the incentive to be rich. If you make the hard working upper class no more powerful than the middle class person, you will take away any incentive for people to become rich.

Of course, based on his campaign, we really don't know what Obama is going to do. If he endorses an economic package similar to Ronald Reagan where their are tax cuts to stimulate growth. If he endorses a package that puts faith in the people to solve their own problems, then, yes, I do want him to succeed.

However, if he endorses an economic stimulus package that calls for tax cuts, even tax cuts on the rich; if he proposes to take money from the earners and give them to the people who are poor; if his final plan calls for building more unproven government programs like the New Deal;
if he proposes using government to solve people's problems, and thus growing the beast that is government, then I hope he fails.

I am a person, who at the core, believes that the people have the ability to solve the economic problems that ail us, and the government will only make those problems worse. You can look back at Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and the first seven years of W's administration to see what happens when you trust the American people to solve problems.

On the contrary, you can see what happens when you trust government to solve problems by looking at FDR and the New Deal. If you look back in history, you will see that the economy, that the depression, was far worse in 1936 after six years of the New Deal's big government programs, than it was in 1929. Unemployment was way higher in 1936 than it was in 1929.

I do not want that to happen again. I believe, as Reagan did, that if you have a crisis, and you want to stimulate an economy, you have two choices. One, you can trust the government to spend this money as FDR did with his failed New Deal. Or, two, you can trust the American people.

History has shown that the people are fully capable at solving the problems that ail us and the government has failed every time it has happened. And, therefore, I do not -- at the core of my heart -- believe that the government should be used to end this recession.

Likewise, I believe that adding programs such as Universal Health care and redistributing of wealth as Obama proposes, will create a more socialistic -- stagnant -- economy like that of Europe. Where there really is no incentive to save and invest in capitol. There is no incentive to start new businesses.

Speaking of this, why is it that people start new business? Why is it that people and businesses put so much time and effort into inventing and discovering new products? It is because they want to get rich. And, with government barriers in the way, such opportunities will be stymied.

And that is why I do not want Obama to succeed if his plan to save the economy is by using government. Sure I might be better off in the short term with his middle class tax cut. But, in the long run, I believe it is not about me. I believe that country should come before me. As McCain said, "Country first."

Democrats, liberals, want to create an America where the economy may be slower, where the poor may be trapped in poverty because of welfare. They want this because the more victims, the greater the power of democrats. Democrats want to give things to people to buy their votes. Democrats "feel your pain." Democrats tell you that you don't need to worry about paying your bills" when they are in power.

Essentially, they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. I hear a lot of people saying things like this since Obama was elected: "Now that Obama is president I don't have to worry about paying my bills. I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

Um, is that the message we want to send to our kids, that if you vote for a liberal president you don't have to go out and work hard and create a living for yourself. That you don't have to be competitive if you want to get rich because you can't get rich anyway. That you might as well sit at home on your couch and let the rich make the money, pay the taxes, and give that money to the government so the government can give it to you.

Personally, I believe that if we are going to give money to anyone it should be back to the people. I think that the people know far better, and are far more capable, of knowing how and where to spend that money than any government program.

And that is the core difference between liberalism's economic views and conservatism. And I pray, from the bottom of my heart, that republicans to not fall to democrats and vote for Obama's economic stimulus package that doesn't have the needed tax cuts that will in turn empower the people.

I, at the core of my heart, do not believe that government is the answer to solving our problems, and, most important, I do not want the kind of America that would result. I do not want my children to be dependent on the government. I do not want them to have the attitude that I don't have to work as hard to make a living. Why? Because that attitude is the attitude of failure.

It has failed every time it has been tried by individual businessmen. It has been failed every time it has been tried in the history of the world. And therefore, again, if Obama's plan is for a larger government, I hope he fails and fails big time.

Was a vote for Obama an anti conservative vote???

Why did people vote for Obama in 2008. Were they voting with a movement, or were they rejecting core American values and conservatism.

Now, as long as we're picking on Anthony palmer's 7-10 Palmer on politics as I did in my last post, he also writes the following:

If Republicans continue to protest his plan, he can remind them that he won the election, as he did a few days ago, thus reminding them of how their ideas were rejected at the ballot box and that they should be more willing to moderate their views.

Of course we may never know, but did America really it's core principles and conservatism in this last election, or was it simply voting for a movement.

Personally, I think America was voting for a movement. And I honestly think that most people who voted for Obama didn't' even know what that movement was, especially considering the media died in 2008 and failed to really investigate, and inform it's readers what Obama really is all about.

And for that, I think, America might be in for a big surprise. A big, miserable, four year Jimmy Carter part II term to be more precise.

Either way, great discussion. Chances are I'm wrong. If you want to read Anthony Palmer's full text click on the link above. Perhaps you'll find, as I did many months ago, that his blog is full of insightful political views. Some of which I respectfully disagree as I demonstated today, and many of which I respectully agree.

Obama tries to define change as bipartisanship???

The 7-10 Palmer on Politics blog (great blog by the way) writes that Obama is trying to be more bipartisan by garnering more republican votes for his economic stimulus package.

He also writes that Obama never really defined "change" and states that his definition of change might actually be an attempt at being more partisan.

He wrote:

"Obama is showing that he does not want the minority to be irrelevant even though they launched every charge under the sun at him during the campaign. This magnanimity buys him political capital with moderates and persuadable Republicans and could certainly be construed as "change" compared to the Bush administration that tended not to seek compromise. It allows Obama to prove that he really does want to lower the partisanship in Washington and end the era of perpetual "political payback," another "change."

In response to this, I humbly wrote:

"Hold the phone. The Bush administration DID seek compromise. It adapted many programs that were written by democrats. And Obama said he's a man of change, but he's being very partisan, particularly by telling republicans if they listen to democrats they won't be able to deal with democrats. Republicans want more tax cuts, I bet Obama won't budge on that.

Basically, bipartisanship, as defined by liberals is this: Conservatives have to give, liberals do not."

He went on to write, and rightfully so, that Obama wants republicans to sign on to this bill because if the bill fails he will take republicans down with him. If the bill fails and republicans he got the bill through Congress and the Senate (of which he has the votes to do so), and he does not have the support of democrats, then the "republicans will run against" this bill in 2010, and have a good campaign slogan.

In response to this I wrote:

Personally, I hope the republican don't sign on to this bill. Doing so would mean they are putting popularity ahead of politics -- something Bush did not do for much of his administration (although he did do some, i.e. no child left behind, prescription drug program, and his last stimulus package to name a few). So, in that sense, "change" appears to be defined as liberal partisanship in the name of bigger government, more taxes, welfare checks going by the name of taxes, and telling repubs who not to listen to. And repubs being called partisan fools if they fail to accept that Obama won the election. Hence, Obama responding to repub chants for more tax cuts in his stimulus package by saying 'I won'"

Well, I suppose, as the old saying goes, you decide.

Will Obama put principal ahead of popularity?

To be a leader y ou have to be willing to be unpopular. Is Obama willing to put aside popularity for his principals?

He said he wants to look at government programs and cut wasteful ones. To do that is going to take some courage. Does he have courage? To be honest, based on his history, we have no clue. The media never really grilled him the way it is supposed to.

Lincoln and Bush both had courage. They often did the unpopular and they did what they believed in, and both took political hits as a result. Believe it or not, Lincoln was never a popular president in his time. And, like Bush, was re-elected with less than 40% approval ratings.

So, will Obama follow in Lincolns footsteps as he proposes? Or will he put party and popularity ahead of principal?

Only time will tell.

The truth about Obama's tax plan

Do you know the truth about Obama's tax plan. Well, you need to read this. Great post by Nikki, and since she wrote it I don't have to. Click here and I'll morph you over to According to Nikki.

Ignore polls, McCain & Obama still neck & neck

It's going to be a tough sell, but I think McCain can win this election. This election, as I wrote a year ago, was never about the War or anything else, it is about the economy. And it is the economy that is going to win this election.

And throughout history whoever was in power stayed in power until the economy went bad, then they were kicked out and the opposing power was elected. It was that simple.

The thing about this election is that even though George Bush is President, he did not cause this financial crisis. The economy is faltering right now not because of anything Bush did.

(in fact he and his republican friends warned democrats that this might happen if they didn't do anything, and they refused to admit it. "Oh, you just don't want to take care of the poor who need houses." "No," Bush said, "It's not about that, it's , 'hey, these people are defaulting on their loans and it's going to become a crisis for everyone if we don't do something soon." "Oh, it's fine," Senator Dobb said. "Oh, it's just fine. )

It's failing because the democrats (starting with Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton) wanted to do the feel good thing and give free loans to people who couldn't afford it. And, so they are the reason for this financial crisis and economic disaster.

Democrats in power, and Obama, want to raise your taxes, spend more money, give you money by printing more of it, which in turn will cause inflation. The "easy" way to jump start the economy would be to simply generate wealth by cutting taxes.

So McCain has his work cut out for him. If he can convince America that it really was the democrats (and it was) who caused this mess, he will win.

If he can convince people that it's a terrible idea to raise taxes and increase spending amid economic turmoil he may sway some of the 45% of Americans who are not convinced he's ready to lead to vote for McCain.

If he can keep reminding people just enough that Obama has a good buddy who is a terrorist, and that he has been associated with people who hate America and attack it on a daily basis, those 20% of voters who are sitting on the edge will walk into the voting booth and say, "Hey, now who is the safer pick after all?"

Well, that's obvious. It's John McCain.

Yet, as Karl Rove writes, "Whether (McCain) can find the right formula in the next 19 days to dig out is a question. If Mr. McCain succeeds, he will have engineered the most impressive and improbable political comeback since Harry Truman in 1948. But having to reach back more than a half-century for inspiration is not the place campaign managers want to be now."

If you are worried about polls, check out this article from the Right View from the Left Coast. It will show you that even though Obama is up in the polls means nothing.

Biden confused about Joe the Plummer

Joe the Plummer seems to be in the spotlight this political season. He's been on the today show and even on Katie Couric's show. Man, I bet he's pretty excited that Obama came to his house.

Biden said, "I don't know any plumbers that earn $250,000 in my neighborhood."

That's the point exactly. He doesn't make $250,000. He said he wanted to buy a business that would put him in that bracket. He said he doesn't want to do it if his taxes would be so high he couldn't afford to make a go of it.

So, the entire point of Joe the Plummer is that you can't just draw the line at $250,000 and say anyone making more than that will get a tax hike, because $250,000 is not a lot of money, especially if you are a person like Joe the Plummer trying to make a go of it.

Note, just because you make $50,000, or $100,000, or $250,000 or even $300,000 does not mean you are rich and are in a spot where you can afford a tax hike. It's only liberals (note I did not say democrats) who think this.

Biden proves the point that I've been trying to make the past few days, that you cannot say that rich people deserve to "spread the wealth," as Obama told Joe the other day when he went to his house looking for votes.

If you say this, then you have to draw the line somewhere, and Obama has drawn the line at $250,000. So, according to Obama's definition of rich, that would include any person making over this amount -- whether you are rich or not.

I know my dad had a business for years and I know he probably made that kind of money. But, when all was said and done with all the bills paid, wages spread out, salaries spread out, and taxes, he made just an average income.

Heck, there were some years he made less than the people working for him. But, according to Obama, he would have been rich. I have never even owned a business and I know this.

I'm so tired of writing about this. But, as the polls seem to be tightening as the election draws near, people seem to be realizing that Obama just doesn't get the economy enough.

His conversation with Joe the Plummer is case in point how he has no clue. Obama is not just left of left, he's left, left, left, left, left of left.

The thought of socialism is scaring people

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on Friday's program, and that is that the stock market is crashing partly because investors are afraid of what might happen to the markets when the tax rate is 50%, corporate and capital gains taxes are increased.

Of course we all know this is what's going to have to happen in order for Obama to pay for all his socialist programs he says he's going to initiate.

Obama says he's going to cut taxes for 90% of Americans. But, at the same time, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. So, that means that a large portion of Americans aren't going to get a tax break, they are going to receive subsidies. And subsidies is a payment from the government to the poor.

Still, while he says he's going to cut taxes, he keeps talking of all the programs he's going to start to help people, such as a nationalized health care system.

No, mind you, his health care proposal pales in comparison to Hillary's, but still his proposal calls for a socialistic program. And, to do what he wants to do, the money has to come from somewhere. He can't simply create all these programs and not fund them.

Well, even the No-Child-Left-Behind program isn't funded enough, according to Ted Kennedy. So you can only imagine all the money that will be spent by the government in an Obama administration.

And, while Obama chides that his tax and spend programs are what is needed to save the economy, McCain actually has what it takes to save the economy. McCain is talking capitalism, and how we need to keep taxes low to allow capitalism to prosper. He is talking economic growth.

Rush wrote, "McCain should just tell everybody that a vote for McCain could save the market."

On an opposing note, Rush writes that many in the Obama camp are happy that the economy is doing so bad:

There are a lot of people in Obama's orbit who love seeing the capitalist system teetering like this. This is a scary thing, folks. The Washington Post today has a story: "The End of Capitalism?" And it's not the first such story I have seen. The end of capitalism? Well, this is what Bill Ayers is all about. ACORN is all about the destruction of capitalism and the Democratic system of fair elections. There are a lot of people on Obama's side that are loving this. There are a lot of people on Obama's side loving that you're in pain, loving that you're anxious, loving this crisis, loving that you're suffering, loving it, 'cause they think two things. They think you deserve to suffer because this is such an unfair, inequitable country. It's not fair anybody has any more than anybody else, and so those who are suffering, good for them. I'm telling you, there's some people in Obama's camp that are doing cartwheels. Not publicly of course, they won't say this stuff publicly. The other reason they like it is that they think it's going to propel Obama over the top.

Rush left one thing out, though. He left out that Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist thug friends want capitalism to fail too. They love this.

Well, as I've written before, capitalism is not what is causing the current financial crisis. It is a failure of liberalism. It's socialism. And more socialism is scaring people. It's partly responsible why people are in such a panic. They fear the Messiah.

To Obama's dismay, Farrakhan endorses him

Some people have called Obama the Messiah because the way people worship him. They call him that in good humor.

Calypso Louie Farrakhan called Obama the Messiah not in good humor, but seriously.

You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change. And that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When The Messiah speaks, the youth will hear. And The Messiah is absolutely speaking.

This is not good timing for Obama's friends to be saying things like this, especially when republicans are tyring to tie Obama in with this crowd. Just as Obama is trying to distance himself from his friends and mentors Farrakhan says this.