Michael Wolfe

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

Posts Tagged ‘redistributive change’

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 »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers