Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘democrat’

Steve Stivers and the Budget “Control” Act

Posted by americana83 on August 30, 2011

Today, I saw a brand new mailer from Congressman Stivers. Unfortunately, Stivers is proud of his vote for the Budget (Outta) Control Act of 2011. I will address the 3 points he makes touting this piece of Status-Quo legislation, and urge you to contact him (information on my Ohio 15th watch page):

Point 1: Cuts government spending

  • Reduces government spending by a greater amount than it increases the debt limit
  • The CBO estimates the bill would initially reduce deficits by 917 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees future additional cuts of up to 1.5 trillion making the total deficit cuts of at least 2.1 trillion over 10 years.

Does anyone really believe that 2.1 trillion in deficit cuts (that is a reduction of the rate at which the deficit grows, NOT an actual cut in real and current spending levels, which will continue to increase even if future congresses follow the absolute letter of the law) over 10 years is anywhere near the 2 trillion dollar debt increase given to status quo politicians through 2012 and likely to continue every year over the next 10 years? This bill is nothing but a campaigning smokescreen. Two trillion over 10 years does not equal 2 trillion this year, it breaks down to 200 billion per year, which is a joke, and which makes the very generous assumption that future congresses will adhere to what amounts to a non-binding resolution. And again a reminder this is not an actual spending reduction, but merely a promised decrease in the rate at which spending increases. So, claiming this bill’s decade long stretch of  promised “deficit cuts” are equal to the 2 trillion dollar give away THIS YEAR is, to be polite, a lie.

Point 2: Controls government spending

  • Caps discretionary spending immediately
  • Imposes spending caps that would set clear limits on future spending and serves as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows

Capping is not reducing. What are we going to do, freeze spending at 2011 levels? Is that fiscal responsibility? These spending levels helped downgrade our credit rating (along with this irresponsible piece of legislation). This is status quo, and unacceptable and unenforceable. If it is as the mailer says a “barrier against government expansion,” then it is a barrier built of air and wagging fingers. Neither of which is capable of stopping the creation of new departments, new regulations, or new and expanded regulations.

Point 3:  Fights for a balanced budget

  • Requires both the house and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year.

How is forcing congress to vote on an amendment “fighting for a balanced budget”? Do you expect an amendment with any real teeth to make it through a still-progressive congress? Moreover, with the government’s constant attempts to end run the Constitution over even just the past couple years, what honest good do you think adding another amendment would do? The most it would do is add another sheet of paper to already massive bills explaining how the bill is “fiscally responsible” and inline with the amendment. It is another smoke and mirrors campaign in lieu of actual government spending.

 

Another point, though not listed as a point, but rather in big bold letters to the right: NO TAX HIKES! As a major victory for families and businesses, these budget and spending reforms were accomplished without raising taxes. There will be NO TAX INCREASES as part of the Budget (outta) Control Act of 2011.

What it doesn’t mention is that the extra constitutional Super Congress created by the Budget (Outta) Control Act can and will likely increase taxes. In fact, Stivers doesn’t mention this new body anywhere in the mailer. Further, where is the spending reform? Caps on current rates? Laugh out loud! Promises of future reductions in the rate of spending increases by future congresses? Kicking any meaningful reductions down the road? This bill does NOTHING now, EXCEPT give progressives a 2 trillion dollar credit card extension through the 2012 elections. It is laughable for this bill to be touted as some kind of victory for fiscal responsibility.

Mr Stivers, voting against this monstrosity would have shown that you had a genuine commitment to fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you could confer with Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Paul or perhaps even fellow Ohio Republican Jim Jordan on what it means to stand up for fiscal integrity even in the face of intra-party opposition.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to look for in a presidential candidate, or any candidate for any office.

Posted by americana83 on June 10, 2011

I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:

Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.

Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.

End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.

Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!

Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.

Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?

Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?

Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.

Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.

Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.

Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.

All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:

Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).

I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.”  It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, culture, deception, Election, Election 2012, health care, Immigration, news, Obama, Ohio, politics, Presidential, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My brother’s keeper?

Posted by americana83 on February 26, 2011

There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:

Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm

And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone

It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:

Genesis 4:5-9  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  (6)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  (7)  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (8)  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.  (9)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:

Genesis 4:10-11  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.  (11)  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of  “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.

This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).

Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.

Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…

This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, health care, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

9/12: Reflections on a Christian Nation

Posted by americana83 on September 12, 2010

Today as many of my compatriots descend on the capital city to assert the economic aspects of the American restoration I will be staying home and celebrating a special Sunday at my home church (the church I attend regularly), celebrating the blessings God has bestowed on us.

In addition to political action, we must return to our roots. Just as God has blessed my little church, He has blessed this great country. I hope that as we reflect on the  meanings of 9/12, the coming together, the call for restoration in our political institutions, and those who lost their lives unexpectedly on the dark day of 9/11/01, that we reflect on the power and mercy of God, who strengthens us to persevere through the hard times and the bloody trials of this life. Who has blessed us with freedom in this life and who offers eternal freedom through Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of all true liberty. Our institutions will never be sanctified with truthfulness and will never submit to the rule of law and transparency until We the People revive and return anew to the Author of Liberty.

One of the things that has made America a “Christian nation” is the fact that the government from its inception has echoed the Old Testament prophet’s call: “Choose this day whom ye will serve.” The Christian nation does not need to force people to convert, or compel them to do so. The God of the Universe did not compel Adam and Eve to obey him! How much less can any government or institution force people to convert or compel them to religious service if even the God of the Universe gives the choice? Religious compulsion is thus an affront to the laws of nature and nature’s God!

They are ignorant or malicious who attempt to paint a “Christian nation” as a theocracy or Iranian-styled Islamic dictatorship. The political-religious control over Europe in the dark ages that ordered people burned at the stake, even for such things as translating the Biblical Scriptures into English or other common languages!, were not acting on the principles of God, but on the principles of totalitarianism- the opposite of God’s call to the people to “study to show thyself approved” and “choose this day whom ye will serve.”

Modern nations founded on either atheism or some other militant faith try to compel at threat of execution or family torture or enslavement or 2nd class citizenship the citizenry to accept and adhere to their doctrines. One only need look at nations such as Iran and China and North Korea to see such compulsion in action.

Thusly our founders did manifest a “Christian nation” in that they left it to the people to seek out their own salvation, to study the scriptures and find God, or to not. Faith can never be compelled or forced. God gives us the option to choose Him. No government has the right to take that choice away. No nation can be saved- salvation is of the individual, but a nation can be sanctified. A nation can stand for righteousness. A nation can safeguard the freedom of its people to worship according to the dictates of their consciousnesses.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
(Joshua 24:15)

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(2 Chronicles 7:14)

Posted in Bible, Christianity, culture, deception, International, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Meet the Candidates Night: 15th Congressional District

Posted by americana83 on February 27, 2010

Recently, nearly all the candidates for Ohio’s 15th congressional district were invited to participate in a “meet the candidate night.” Of these, Dave Ryon, Steve Stivers and John Adams filled out the questionnaire and participated in the Q & A. There was apparently one other candidate who showed up, but had not filled out the questionnaire, or have knowledge of what 9/12 was (The Union County 9/12 and Central Ohio 9/12 groups were hosting the event). Mary Jo Kilroy, the current representative, ignored the invitation, though her presence was made known throughout the night as candidates explained how they would strive to bring responsive, constitutional representation back to the 15th congressional district.

All of the candidates were asked if they would sign a “fiscal responsibility pledge.” All candidates were then provided with one, and all appeared to sign it. There was an addendum on the pledge about “ear mark reform transparency and up or down votes.

NOTE: If a candidate, agreed with another candidate on an answer, go to the same number under that candidate’s responses. I have added some notes following certain questions. I have done a minimal amount of editing to the following transcribed answers to make it more readable. If you see any errors, please contact me.

The questions were as follows:

  1. What does the oath of office mean to you?
  2. What type of tax system do you think would be ideal?
  3. What is wrong with our current healthcare system. And how would you fix it?
  4. Earmarks (that you are against) in a bill you and your constituents are in favor of, how would you vote on that bill and why – best interests of the country, or your special interest?
  5. Putting the axe to government” What are to 2 steps to shrink deficit
  6. What do you plan to do to beat [Kilroy] in the general election. How’s your war chest (Campaign cash)
  7. How would you handle unemployment: what role does the fed government actually have?
  8. What is your solution to illegal immigration? (Est 20 Million illegals burdens infrastructure).
  9. How do you feel about gun rights and the second amendment, and… (two part)
  10. who do each of you turn to for advice and favorite person. “you admire” (alluding to the statement Anita Dunn made about who she turns to for political wisdom, Mother Teresa and Mao Tse Tung).

Dave Ryon

  1. The oath of office … is to listen” “if you listen to the people you have more answers” I will listen to article 1 section 8” “You can take that to the bank. PLEDGE: No vacations if I am elected, will be on call” “You will here back from me right away”
  2. Wouldn’t mind seeing it a lot flatter, 0%, repeal 16th amendment. 1.2 trillion over seas every year, Feds collect 1.2 trillion dollars from individuals like your self. “Have you pay the state revenue department to decide how to distribute federal tax dollars.” “Can hold back the dollars those federal programs are spending now, and giving the power back to the states”
  3. Agrees with Stivers, health care tax deductions. “Steve gave a good answer”
  4. Is it moral, is it constitutional, do we need it, and can we afford it” If the answer is no to any of these 4 questions, then I will vote no. If I vote yes, “I have read the entire thing”
  5. Would not support increasing debt ceiling. Next move is a balanced budget amendment.”Federal Government should too”
  6. I am offering you a constitutional conservative that is running. Pro life, pro 10th amendment. Pledge to follow Art 1 sec 8. “if women have a right to an abortion, what we are saying is that the children in their womb are property.” “That is slavery… was abolished long ago.”
  7. Go back to the fundamental promise. “we need to deregulate” “Forcing companies to put out so much money… they have to drop jobs” Monetary policy is terrible in this country” -Fed Reserve. Devalued $ = job loss. “once we have a strong dollar, you will see a boost in employment”
  8. Agree with Steve. “There was talk of outsourcing port security” If you are here illegally, you should be sent back immediately.
  9. Against any legislation that would diminish right to bear arms.” “the man who inspired me to run for office was congressman Ron Paul.” [Paul] has a finger on the “constitutional pulse” “He’s my inspiration to be running today.”

Steve Stivers

  1. Very Seriously” “Privilege” “Stand up for the folks that sent you there” “I take that pledge very seriously as a member of the armed forces…very seriously…”
  2. What kind of tax reform would be appropriate. “I support a flatter, more simple tax system than we have now.” “Close loopholes” “Won’t have to pay as many people to work for”
  3. First, scrap the bill in front of Washington right now” “Start from scratch” “best health care in the world” first problem- “healthcare not portable, no one knows what anything costs.” 5 stitches: $1750. give incentive to healthy living – Defensive medicine, tort reform “Insurance across state lines” There are “billions dollars of waste in Medicare and Medicaid we have to go after”
  4. I like the way David answered it.” “the public needs to have time to understand them”
  5. 1st balanced budget law immediately. 2nd balanced budget amendment. LINE ITEM VETO. Performance based budgeting. And move to a 2 year budget cycle from a 1 yr budget cycle. “congress only made it through 2 of their budget bills” NOTE: A line item veto is unconstitutional, as it would transfer legislative power from Congress to the president. Congress already ignores laws, they would almost certainly ignore any sort of balanced budget law.
  6. He is a “Battle tested candidate” My focus is to beat Mary Jo Kilroy. I will make sure that happens” “I will make sure MJK not in congress. His war chest is over 600,000 by end of December. 515,000 on hand. Raised 2.3 Million last time. About 3K volunteers. MJK is on record on “cap & trade” HK bonuses, GM, “I’ll have the money and resources and the man power” Like John said, Mary JO must Go. NOTE: Was the only candidate that appeared to answer the question about their financial status.
  7. Government’s role is to provide a sound climate for business. Government doesn’t create jobs” “Role of government is to keep taxes low.” NOTE: This is great.
  8. what “we absolutely have to NOT do is give amnesty. we can’t allow people to commit illegal acts and not have there be no consequences.” “you don’t have a border unless you secure your border.” “active and passive measures” “if someone is here illegally and we capture them, they should go home.” “Eventually, we need to do immigration reform” “Should be based on what our economy needs” “help, not hurt the country.” “We cannot continue to thrive and prosper unless we deal with this issue…its costing trillions in additional resources
  9. Co-sponsored concealed carry, castle doctrine. Endorsed by NRA in 2008 and is a member. “I have been and will always be a supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution.”
  10. My wife and James Madison, “one of the smartest men that set up our constitutional framework.

John Adams

Note: At the beginning, when candidates were supposed to introduce themselves, John launched into an attack on Steve that took him well past the 10 minutes allotted to each candidate to introduce themselves. He jibed Steve: “We can not defeat her [Mary Jo Kilroy] with a [sorry Steve] moderate.” and used some of Kilroy’s attack ad points to attack Steve Stivers. While there are appropriate venues to do so, this was setup to introduce the candidates and get them to answer questions submitted to the Union County 9/12.

  1. So help me I do, I would take that oath… Solemn oath…There to serve the people” “all politics is local. take that seriously” “Trying to find the word here, I’m 64…”
  2. You reduce taxes at same time (you) reduce the size of the federal government.” “hundreds of thousands more employees [Feds]. “Reduce it, make it work smarter”
  3. The first thing we have to do is stop government run healthcare.” “That’s not America” “Encourage free market system” Insurance should be allowed to sell “anywhere in the United States” “Tort reform “vast amounts of money for insurance [doctors]” “Real tort reform” “millions of people out of work…how do you buy health insurance if you don’t have a job?”
  4. No way.” “They [issues] should be separated out”
  5. First step. “fire Obama.” [shrink it “in a gradual way” “realistically we could bring it down with a new congress -10%” Cut congress pay 10%. 10% per year. “not wasting the people’s money
  6. Focused on Mr Stivers right now. I go no where after may 4th if I don’t win” Kilroy is a “socialist progressive” “She’s a rubber stamp for that crowd [obama-reid-pelosi]” would address abortion issue with Kilroy. Roe V Wade “one of the worst decisions we have made in our country.” “abortion must come to a stop”
  7. we start working on our own energy sources” We have vast amounts of oil reserves nationwide. Coal oil natural gas. “2000 years of our own resources.” “energy = your economy” Work on domestic energy to put people back to work. “we could become a net exporter [of energy]”
  8. We need to seal our border “still porous” “Free transportation back to where they came from” Should have to come like “every other immigrant.
  9. Absolutely support 2nd amendment.
  10. My wife – she is my inspiration…”

Final thoughts: I felt Steve and David performed quite well. Both behaved respectably and followed the rules and for the most part answered the questions. I felt that John, despite his newness to the area, handled himself most like a traditional politician, launching into attacks and providing formula answers. David Ryon appeared to have the strongest grasp of constitutional limitations, in the rapid fire questions, he was the only one not tripped up by the hypothetical “national right to work” law, which would go beyond the article 1, section 8 limitations on congress. Steve Stivers also responded very professionally to the attacks unexpectedly launched by Adams. Adams, apparently dissatisfied with the forum, has removed all references to tea parties and 9/12 from his website. A Google cache from February 23rd still shows the sections referring to Tea Parties and 9/12. If this is not the case, I invite comment.

The candidates’ websites are listed below:

Dave Ryon: http://www.ryonforcongress.com/

Steve Stivers: http://www.stivers4congress.com/

John Adams: http://www.johnadams2010.com/

The Union County 912’s homepage:

http://912unioncounty.org/

The Union County 912 meetup:

http://www.meetup.com/We-Surround-Them-ULC/

Disclaimer: This review and commentary is not endorsed by the Union County 9/12 and contains the work and opinions of Americana83.com.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Lets talk about race.

Posted by americana83 on February 19, 2010

Its easy to talk about racists, to throw that toxic label onto your opponents when they don’t agree with you. The left loves to call conservatives racist, and talk about how Hitler was a right winger. Lets look at some of those enlightened folks on the left, and see what they say, when they likely haven’t had, or taken, time to carefully consider statements.

Chris Matthews: “For an hour I forgot he was black.

Joe Biden: “clean and articulate

Harry Reid: “light skinned and no negro dialect

How many conservatives do you know who go around saying those kind of things? The media would never stop talking about them. Obama appealed relentlessly to the race guilt of modern liberals by saying things of himself such as  “He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills.” and “Skinny black man with a funny name. By and large, it is liberals who have worked to keep race at the forefront of politics, especially since the run up to the 2008 elections. the incessant drumbeat of the “historic election.”

Now what about the favorite posterboy of “right wing racism,” Adolf Hitler. Was he really “right wing” in the sense that American leftists imply?

Consider the following:

Did hitler promote a limited government and separation of powers?

Did Hitler believe in the right to keep and bear arms?

Did Hitler believe in Religious liberty?

Did Hitler believe in Freedom of the press?

Did Hitler promote economic freedom and private property?

No! Hitler promoted a totalitarian government (which makes sense once you consider Nazi is short for National Socialist German Worker’s Party). He boasted of the fact that under him Germany, for the first time had full gun registration. He persecuted the Jews and muzzled the churches. Opposition newspapers operating openly in Nazi Germany- ha! The claim that Hitler is “right wing” in the American sense is absurd. In fact, the swastikas that scared poor Nanci Pelosi present at tea parties had a “slash” through them, like the no smoking sign. They were part of a protest against totalitarian government, like the kind of government both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had.

Now I pose another question, who has been using race as a bludgeon? Does anyone remember how the Obama Justice Department mysteriously dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers who were parading around with a weapon making threatening racist comments in front of a polling place? Have you ever heard such racist statements as “credit to your race” or “articulate and clean” or “hey I forgot he was black for an hour” or “he appealed because he was light skinned and had no negro dialect?” In case you think the New Black Panthers are sincere in their claims of non violence/intimidation, check out their Nationalist Manifesto, which really echos Hitler’s racial supremacy delusions (and empty rejection of Communists) and rails against white people and makes the claim that Black people have no place in America. As to their claim of not “actively campaigning” for Obama, check out the cover of their magazine here.

The progressives have tried to make it about skin so as to avoid the war of ideologies. Hitler spun the economic woes of Germany as a tale of the Jewish people gone wild, and the paradigm was skewed towards the euphoria of eloquent speeches and initially a few drops of “it’s their fault” racism which grew to become the consuming passion of Hitler’s tyranny. Today ignorant and evil men attempt to use race to divide us. To keep we the people at perpetual war with each other, even after the election that was supposed to usher in a post-racial era.

To the Christian, the Bible says God hath made of one blood all nations of man and that God is no respecter of persons. To the American, our Constitution was written to fulfill the testament of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights. The corruptions introduced as politicians tried to patch up the slavery issue without addressing the root sin were not the fault or original intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson trembled when he thought of slavery and the justice of God.

To the liberal I ask: will you stop making this about race? Of the many people I’ve talked to and met with, I have yet to hear someone opposing these unconstitutional and immoral policies because the man pushing for them is black. To those few that do*, their ignorance will consume them,  for at the very least, racism is contrary to the principles of freedom and individualism, not to mention a crime against God.

Conservatism is an ideology, not a party. Not all republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are republicans. And one of the greatest myths of modern politics, not all conservatives are white! The man the media portrayed as being a “racist threat” to Obama, was in fact, a black man joining in a rally to stand up for second amendment rights! Check out these others who boldly proclaim a conservative message of freedom and limited government or take a principled stand against the policies of Barack Obama:

Apostle Claver, of RagingElephants.org

Alicia Healy, 2010 Candidate for Ohio Senate

Lloyd Marcus, Tea Party Express and Anthem

Star Parker, 2008 Values Voter Summit

Pastor Manning (probably one of Obama’ most outspoken critics).

Those who continue to promote the myths that the Tea Parties are about race, or health care protesters are bigots, or that conservatism itself somehow breeds racism are either ignorant of the movements and should have done more research, or have malicious intent and are hoping to keep brother fighting brother while the rights of all of us, black and white and in-between.

United we stand, divided we fall. Reject the sparks of race war the media and “mainstream” media are trying to ignite.

Together, we shall overcome!

And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Acts 17:26)

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(John 3:16-17)

* the only group I have found that claims to be conservative is the council of conservative citizens, which somehow mixes the putrid collectivist ideology of race superiority/separatism  with claims of individualism and freedom. At least the New Black Panthers make no such claims and embrace a wholly collectivist ideology.  See my complete refutation of their “statement of principles” here.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

And the pursuit…

Posted by americana83 on December 20, 2009

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

Published first on thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Spreading the wealth around”

Posted by americana83 on October 7, 2009

Yesterday, Slate published an article titled “Health Reform Winners and Losers: How the House bill redistributes money to the middle class.” Among the statements they made, this one is both telling and alarming:

But in general, health reform has a redistributive impact. Democrats hesitate to talk about this for fear of sounding like socialists. Republicans hesitate to talk about it for fear of sounding like plutocrats. But let’s face it: Redistributing income in one form or another is a very large part of what government does. Arguing about whether it should be done is like arguing about whether the sky should be blue. The more urgent question is how it is done.

What the article fails to mention, is that wealth redistribution was never the intended purpose of the Constitutional Republic, and the sweeping conclusion that doing so is as proper as calling the sky being blue is absurd. The progressive income tax or the “success tax” is what really began this redistributive binge. Now the government wants to reach deeper into people’s pockets. 209408.9

Let me ask this: What right do I have to someone else’s money? They admit it will take a “mere” 20,000 from someone earning 358,000 (this is of course in addition to the 33 percent already being taken by federal taxes, and not including social security or state or local taxes).  Gross wages are a meaningless figure, because no one sees the “gross” of their income. The government is already taking $103283 from John Bourgeoisie, so whats another $20,000 right? If you’re in California and making a mere 47,000 or more, deduct an additional 9.3 percent, or $30990 right off the gross. Social security saps another 6.2 percent, or $6621 of the first 106,800 (and the ceiling keeps going up). Also throw in the 1.45 percent of gross, or $5191 Medicare tax. So this individual’s gross income of 358,000 for practical purposes becomes 211915* before taking out the ObamaCare tax of 20,000, which drops the figure to $191915. This would mean that, assuming the costs don’t skyrocket like most government programs, the government would be taking just over 45.1% of their gross income. (This does not even factor in sales taxes or gas taxes). So the average person who makes 358,000 is already contributing almost 40**% of their gross income (again, not factoring sales taxes or gasoline taxes) to the state and federal governments. It also does not include the difficult to estimate invisible tax of inflationary deficit spending.

How much wealth redistribution is enough? The Bible says, Thou shalt not steal, and when the little man gets shafted, we  rightfully demand justice be done. But, thanks to characters like Robin Hood, and the corrupt king he stole from, theft from the rich is seen in some circles as “getting what they deserve.” And when it is legally mandated by the government, it is seen as perfectly respectable. And as the government expands more and more into our personal lives and the private sector, we are only going to see the percentages skyrocket, and it won’t be just the “upper crust” that feels it. Imaging adding about another 15-17% for “cap-and-trade,” plus the ripple effect price increases all across the economy, or at least anything produced that required electricity somewhere in the production cycle.

Charity, and assisting those in need, is a call to Christians, not to the government, or via extortion. In deed, the government programs often entrap people in serf style subsistence living, with no incentive to improve themselves or get off the government life support. This gives these impoverished voters incentives (bribes?) to vote in the politicians that promise to keep giving them stuff for “nothing.”

So, a healthcare tax will greatly expand the socialist (yes, Slate I said it) redistribution our government engages in. Yes, it will decrease the number of doctors and hospitals available. Next, the government will have to subsidize doctor school and possibly coerce people into choosing the medical profession. It is in part the abysmal reimbursements current government programs pay to medical professionals that the cost for John Doe’s medical treatment is so high.

Mr Obama, Slate, Pelosi: how much wealth redistribution is enough? More importantly, how do you justify it constitutionally? He can’t, and his complaints about the “Warner court,” that they continued to interpret the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it as a charter of negatives that the government cannot do to you, the liberties that cannot be taken away by the government only shows that he has an utter contempt for the document upon which this country was founded, the one that he pledged to “uphold and defend.”

Is it possible then that his taking the oath of office was a commission of perjury in front of the highest court in the United States, since he wants to use the government, either the courts or the legislature to destroy the constitution, fundamentally changing this country in ways that the founders never dreamed of or intended?

Due to graduations within the federal tax scales, the tax amount shown is slightly less than the quoted maximum tax rate

*I did the same calculations with an income of 350,000 and the resulting net income gain from an $8,000 pay increase (358,000) is only $2506.1 (the combined government take on the last 8000 is just over 68.6 percent).

**There are some states that have lower or even no state personal income tax. This also does not include local or municipal or school taxes/levees. Cost of ObamaCare is taken from the Slate article

California tax rate was calculated using the state’s tax calculator.

The federal tax rate was calculated using the max-pedia tax calculator

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the GOP: an identity crisis?

Posted by americana83 on October 5, 2009

There has been a progressive leftward creep in both parties (most sharply in the Democrats) that was evidenced in the choosing of a semi-closeted Marxist to represent the Democrats and a “pro-war” democrat to represent the republicans in 2008. Due to his “maverick” nature, we would have still been fighting Cap-&-Tax, and some kind of health care takeover, albeit both would have been on a slower, more gradual time table.

A McCain presidency would have very likely damaged Sarah Palin, and when some of the same failed policies being implemented would have been pressed forward by a McCain, it would have almost irreversibly destroyed the concept of conservatism on a national scale, and guaranteed a decisive 2012 democrat victory, of likely a much greater scale than the 2008 results… true 1 party rule.

If the republican party is to be saved, it cannot be done by what Steele and McCain have done: press it farther from its conservative roots, and more towards a liberal democrat platform. McCain with his cap and tax, Steele with his confusion on marriage and embrace of abortionists running under the GOP “big tent,” The party is attempting to destroy itself from the top down….

What do we do in 2012 if, instead of a consolidated and truly conservative GOP, we get McCain 2.0, aka the democrat party? And instead of the Democrat party, we continue to get the democratic socialist party?. It becomes a clear lose-lose choice, with no voice for conservatives.

What do you do if both paths lead to the same destination but with different paces?

Many rank and file GOPpers are solidly conservative, but how do you fight a rotting and liberal party structure that endorses and supports liberals or RINOs when solid conservatives are available?

GOP will only remain, (or become) a viable conservative option when these questions are answered, and these glaring problems corrected. Otherwise, we have no conservative voice. We need solid conservatives to take the cause into the Republican party structure. If it cannot be restored with any degree of credibility into a solid conservative party, it must be abandoned and an alternative built. Granted the challenges of such a task are extreme, which is why it is important a real effort is made to restore the GOP. Perhaps the radical Obama presidency will be a catalyst for a Conservative revival. Don’t rely on the GOP party structure to tell you which candidates are the best. Do your own research. There are good candidates that may not be the darling of the party, but will be exactly the kind of people we need in congress.

Otherwise, join me in a sad rewrite of Beyonce’s irreplaceable:

to the left, to the left, every politician on the ballot to the left.

And thus would the GOP sacrifice its country in a vain effort to gain media darling status. We must never compromise on our core principles.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers