Only a Liberal…

Whatever word you want to use to describe Barack Obama, there is no doubt he supports wealth-redistribution. Marxists, socialists, and communists alike think of wealth as though it is no different than oxygen. The fact that some people have more of it than others is not fair to them. The problem with wealth redistribution consists of two incorrect assumptions:

1. Taking money from the rich “helps” the poor
2. There is no difference in value to the community between two people who work

Taking money from the rich actually HURTS poor people. Econ 101: you can’t tax a corporation. All costs of a corporation must be included in the price of its product. You raise taxes on big business, they simply raise the price of their product, and anyone who buys it suffers. Taxing businesses is a hidden sales tax on the consumer.

Another way for a business to get their tax money back is by doing more with less, as in less employees. Putting a luxury tax on yachts may make you feel better about soaking that rich bastard, but it will result in decreased yacht sales across the board. Rich guy says, “eh I dont need a yacht” or “I dont need a 2nd yacht!” Rich guy is still rich, but some yacht-making craftsmen will see his work disappear. You may not like “trickle-down” economics, but I don’t like that beer makes me fat. Tough shit.

Filthy rich CEOs create jobs

As for the difference of value between one person’s work and another’s, the work of a CEO or VP of sales can produce contracts and capital to produce more jobs, while the work of the entry-level employee cannot. The CEO comes up with a good idea and fronts his own money to the entry-level employee to help him achieve a goal. Rich businessmen may be in it for the money, but their desire for it creates amazing byproducts. Their prosperity helps create prosperity for others.

Steve Jobs invested millions of dollars into a touch screen cell phone that could have bombed. The incentive to make billions from it is what made him take the risk. What happened? The iPhone is a huge succes, and as a result, Apple Corporate had to hire thousands of engineers, sales people, Apple Store had to open new branches, hire more Apple Geniuses. AT&T increased their customer base when people bought and signed up for service with the iPhone, causing them to open more branches, hire more people. Both companies probably had to hire new HR employees to handle all the new employees. Is Steve Jobs an evil businessman? Did his money and prosperity not get back to the “people”?

In this financial crisis, people have gotten fed up with rich businesses making “too much” money, so they want the government to take care of it. Americans are appalled that some CEO made $200 million, and they want people like Obama to take it away. Obama is happy to oblige, but just because Obama might be able to get his buddies to pass legislation stealing that CEOs contractually agreed upon compensation does not change the fact that it is stealing. You take all the crazy incomes of all the Wall Street CEOs, and give them back to the American people, it will be about $20 a person. Does that solve your financial woes? Why not let that CEO keep it and wait for him to invest it in the market, or in a new company that creates hundreds or thousands of new jobs?

The myth of Robin Hood

Robin Hood did not steal money from a rich businessman. He stole it from a rich dictator, who decided the levels of taxation with no concern or council from the people. Barack Obama would like you to think he is Robin, when in fact he is King John.

From sayanythingblog.com…
“According to STATSIndiana, in 2007, Indianapolis/Marion County had an estimated population of 876,804. Of that number 232,607 were below 18 years of age, for a total of 644,197 people in Marion County/Indianapolis 18 or over and thus eligible to vote. (Indiana allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated).

So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!”

Im sure Obama’s former employer ACORN has nothing to do with this. Search for Obama ACORN, youll see they are connected, and just know that ACORN is famous for registering people named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Jive Turkey. Who knows… maybe they registered you in Atlanta, or Chicago. Power to the people!

Obama did not pitch a shutout in the competition for spouting liberal, and sometimes communist, nonsense. My rough score in that department was Obama 9, McCain 3.

O: “If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust”
IF?! Would you consider our invasion of Europe “ineffective” intervention in the Holocaust? How did this guy get nominated?
O: “Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan.”
August 2007, Obama said, “There are terrorists holed up in [Pakistan's] mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” he said. “They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
ACTUALLY SENATOR, YOU DID. If the actionable intelligence simply confirms bin Laden’s presence in the mountains, you have two options: bomb every square inch of the mountains, or invade Pakistan. So you either lied, or you threatened to bomb Pakistan.

O: “Prosperity isn’t going to trickle down”
Barack, you war on big business ignores the fact that big business is where jobs come from. I realize you want the government to employ everyone, but if you liberals actually succeeded in putting Exxon out of business, 106,000 people would lose their livelihood.
O: “Tax cuts for 95% of Americans”
Americans in the top 5% of adjusted gross income pay over 60% of all taxes. Barack Obama claims that’s not enough. Did you know that 33% of everyone who files taxes don’t pay any taxes? So Barack can only lower taxes for 67% of Americans WHO FILE taxes. He pulls number out of his ass.
O: “Need bailout so people can stay in their houses”
He wants the bailout so people can stay in “their” houses. The reason we need the bailout is because these people can’t afford the house. If they can’t afford the house, why should they get to stay? Is he saying every American has the right to own a home? Preposterous! And the houses aren’t “theirs” anymore. The second they stop paying for it makes them squatters.

Mc: “Fighting against climate change”
McCain being the RINO liberal he is. We have much bigger problems, John. But I’ve covered this topic extensively in my past posts on the global warming crisis FARCE. Click the global warming category in the right column.

O: “Oil companies have 68 million acres of land; use them or lose them”
Why Barack Obama thinks the land oil companies own is any of his friggin business is beyond my comprehension. They’re paying all the bills and taxes for their land, so why is it anyone’s business what they use it for? Obama is essentially threatening to take land from private entities arbitrarily. Totalitarian, communist claptrap.

O: “Americans buying American cars instead of foreign cars”
Hey Barry, let’s just stop importing anything. No more foreign televisions, or clothes. Good luck with that approach. Not to mention that many parts in American cars are foreign parts. The auto industry is global, not American versus non-American.
Mc: “Reset mortgages to new value with $300 billion bill”
The government deciding what the price of houses should actually be is so anti-American, I can’t believe John McCain actually said it out loud. Homebuyer agreed to pay the mortgage amount, seller accepted. End of discussion. The homebuyer could have said no, homebuyer said yes; SCREW THAT HOMEOWNER. We start bailing out people who can’t afford what they buy, everyone will see no reason to ever live below their means.
Mc: “Traveled the world and seen the devastation of greenhouse gases”
You can’t “see” the devastation. Even Al Gore doesn’t claim there’s damage right now except maybe the Arctic, but that there will be damage real, real soon. McCain’s pandering here, and its why conservatives have never been excited about him.

O: “3% of world oil, 25% of oil use”
Correct, according to Nationmaster.com, the U.S. represents 25.2% of the world’s oil consumption. But comparing it to the 3% number is irrelevant to arguing that we should cut back our use. Logic would dictate if we use 25% of the world’s fuel, we should produce 25% of the world’s wealth. Turns out 25.2% oil consumption by the U.S. results in 25.5% of the world’s GDP. As usual, liberals only use statistics that look good for them. Our oil use is quite fair.

O: “Healthcare is a right”
This is communism. Americans have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to have happiness. The founders were careful with their wording to clarify no one is entitled to happiness, but that no one should be singled out for prevention of the pursuit. Do we have the right to have a full head of hair? Do we have the right to be beautiful? I suppose any family with 2 adults has the right to have 2 cars, or should they have to make due with 1, to be fair to those who can’t afford 2?

I overheard someone talking about healthcare, saying that its absolutely unacceptable that medical care would be for profit. The majority of liberals would agree with this, so I ask you, why on god’s green earth would anyone ever go to medical school? Why bother spending your 20s studying 24/7 to make the same amount as an accountant who stopped studying at age 22?

Both sides in the Presidential race have resorted to the liberal tactic of class warfare. Blame Wall Street for its corruption and greed, because blaming fellow senators unavoidably reflects badly on all senators.

The problem with all this class envy/warfare nonsense is that money and wealth are great things. Liberals would have you believe money is something rich people collect from poor people so they can roll around in it, making “dough” angels, and occasionally buying yachts. The reality is money is what pays for electricity, water, healthcare, and allows employers to employ employees. The more rich people there are, the more jobs there will be. The fact that the potential of making money may have greed as a byproduct does not mean we should be taking the high compensation of CEOs.

GREED HAS EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST!

Complaining about greed on Wall Street is like building a house with no roof and then complaining when it rains. You have to build the roof, and you have to have laws that prevent greed from taking advantage of the financial layman. Punishing the rich by taking their windfall profits is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The more profits those companies make, the more jobs they can create in the future. Those profits allow for more research and development, which will allow the company to make their processes more efficient, lowering prices.

You can’t punish the rich. You can’t tax a corporation. When you punish the rich, all you do is tighten their wallets, which hurts anyone that has rich patrons. When you tax a corporation, all they do is pass the taxes onto the consumer, so you are actually taxing the consumer. So stop trying in this fruitless effort of redistributing wealth through taxes and windfall profit confiscation.

Politicians want you to ignore their perpetual greed for tax dollars by distracting you with the downsides of a free market that isn’t policed properly by the policies of those very politicians.

The 2000 election illustrated the rules of the electoral college in national elections, which sparked much controversy. It also illustrated the appalling lack of understanding of why we have the electoral college.

I’ll use a football situation to explain how ridiculous the “popular vote” argument is. Pittsburgh beat Seattle in the Feb 2006 Superbowl, 21-10. Picture Seattle protesting the game because they gained more yards than Pittsburgh, but weren’t rewarded with the proper number of points. Seattle gained 396 yards, while Pittsburgh gained only 339, yet Pittsburgh was named the winner, 21-10. But the winner of football games isn’t decided by yards, its decided by points.

The founders were concerned that a popular vote would essentially give the power of national elections to urban states and large states. No candidate would ever campaign on or consider the issues of states with rural areas or in smaller states. They would also spend more time in states where they were more likely to “run up the score.” Candidates would spend more time in those states than they currently do. The electoral college system essentially forces them to campaign in more states than a popular vote system.

Of course, the current system forces candidates to focus primarily on “swing” states, which isn’t ideal either. So which way is better? I think the two systems arguably cancel each other out on the issue of campaigning focus. So other issues should be the topic of discussion. In a country of 50 states, the smaller states should be relevant nationally.

There is also one unavoidable logistical reason. A nationwide recount in a popular vote is not feasible. The drama in Florida was one state. Any close election where the popular vote decided would put the election results in limbo, as we awaited vote counts in all 50 states, certainly for more than the two months between election and inauguration.

References:

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_ecemail.html
http://www.interocitor.com/archives/000159.html

The video that should eliminate Barack Obama from consideration for President.
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Hey Barack, you wouldn’t be planning to send that money to unproven alternative energy systems, would you?
“I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Aside from the fact that our ICBMs haven’t been on hair-trigger alert since the 80s, “seeking” a global ban on fissile material may prove difficult. On what planet, or in what paranormal dimension, does Barack Obama think he can convince the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and China, or any other nation to stop trying to make nukes? The only way other countries get rid of there nukes is if we get rid of ours first. Does anyone else see how insane that would be?

This guys is such a joke, I am insulted as an American that so many people not only would vote for him, but adore him as though he is the next Jesus Christ. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

Mark my words. The nomination of Sarah Palin has scared the pants off the Democrats. McCain’s post-Palin surge in the polls, plus Biden’s statement lead me to believe that the Democrats may switch Biden out for Hillary to win the election. I still dont see why Hillary would agree to it.

Actually, one way to do it would be not to tell Hillary. All they would need to do is put together an event where Obama, Biden, and Hillary are all in attendance, then surprise her with it. She would have to accept, or risk pissing off Democrats.
Biden will be the one to give the speech if they do it. That way he can save face, and Obama/Hillary can still hire him to defense secretary or something if they win as an apology for benching him.

Barack Obama

Will pick: Joe Biden
Should pick: Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden is more qualified for president than Obama is, so he’d make Obama look experienced. And Biden didn’t do anything wrong in the primaries. He’ll get the nod.
Obama is TANKING. Despite polls showing a 10% lead for Democrats in a generic congressional poll and an unpopular war, he is virtually tied in the polls with McCain. The American people are learning more and more about Barack Obama, and it isn’t going well. If he picks Hillary (who most likely wouldn’t accept), all the liberals will do backflips and get excited about beating Bush in ‘08. Oh wait, he’s not running… either way, McCain will be in big trouble if Hillary decides to take the copilot chair.

John McCain

Will pick: Mitt Romney
Should pick: Mitt Romney

The dirty little secret is the base knows they screwed up not going for Romney. McCain is a Democrat RINO, and Mitt would give him the appearance of conservatism that will seal the big win in November.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Republican. I just call em like I see em. If you have constructive criticism, please comment.

The natural evolution of politics in America has created two relevant parties. On the other hand describing each American as one or the other is a simplistic system. Its even somewhat simplistic to brand individual politicians as pure Republicans or pure Democrats because there are just too many issues that they differ on. There are pro-life and pro-abortion on both sides of the aisle. Same goes for proponents and opponents of the 2nd amendment.

If you forced me to pick one party or the other to identify myself, I would reluctantly have to pick Republicans. I will cover the specifics of why in a later post, but the fact is there are 3 democrats left in the 2008 presidential race. To call McCain a “RINO” would be an understatement. He said that greedy people on Wall Street “perhaps need to be punished.” Hey John, pretend we already have laws in place to punish crimes. Making craploads of money is a good thing. People that make lots of money can afford to employ others. He also supports legislation for fighting the man-made global warming myth. He wants to get rid of Guantanamo Bay, which no one has explained a rational reason to do so. He voted to ban drilling in ANWR. He wanted amnesty for illegal aliens, though he now says he wouldn’t vote for it now.

The McCain enigma

The good news for you Republicans out there is McCain most likely won’t bother pushing global warming legislation. The American people, as a group, aren’t buying it. As for any amnesty plans, talk radio managed to stop that, and they’ll be able to do it again when McCain takes office. When it comes to the economy, he has said multiple times that he wishes to extend the Bush tax cuts (which is a good thing), as opposed to the two Democrats. You can see a diary of McCain’s positions here. I’m certain he’ll defend the country in the war on terror, or any other problems.

To be fair, Hillary would defend this country as well. Ya, ya, you’re yelling at me for saying that, but Hillary is a wind-sock, and the country blows in the ass-kicking direction. Obama has shown he’ll at least attempt to appease our enemies. All three will defend us in response to a major attack, but we’d rather avoid that by electing McCain.

Permanent damage to the country

The other issue is any permanent damage that these three might be able to do along the lines of such past permanent damage like the New Deal. Hillary could succeed with some sort of socialized medicine, which would be awful. McCain might give terrorists access to our lawyers by moving them from Guantanamo to U.S. soil. Barack… no one knows what this guy will do because he really has no record. The fact that his wife and uncle-like pastor are both raging racists, but he says he’s not, should worry any sane, open-minded person.

So should you jump off a cliff, jump off a bridge, or jump into sewage? Well, we can always climb out of the sewage and clean off, so…

Vote McCain ‘08.

Hillary and Obama are both liked by a lot of Americans. I breathed a sigh of relief when Edwards finally got out. He’s crazy, and nobody on the left cares that he is (they’re a little crazy too).

From the last Democrat debate after Hillary and Barack argued with each other: “I also want to know on behalf of voters here in South Carolina, this kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this?” Are you serious, John? Did you really just say that out loud? Again, if you buy his kind of nonsense, please leave my website. Now.

Giuliani is backing McCain, I’m sure putting Rudy at the top of the VP list for John. Should have gone to New Hampshire, Rudy.

Ron Paul is… Ron Paul. Great on domestic issues, small government, but just too scary on national defense. He has no chance anyway.

Huckabee appears to be a flash in the Iowan pan. Not gonna win without a miracle, which his consituents have surely contributed their karma to.

McCain, I repeat, is not a conservative. He commented in tonight’s debate about “greedy” people on Wall Street that “perhaps need to be punished.” Uh… folks… this is kooky liberal nonsense. Class warfare, right out of the Edwards playbook. As far as I’m concerned he is disqualified. Done. Anyone that ignores his comment needs to open their mind to him not being the guy.

Romney still hasn’t pissed me off yet. He’s a little too good at public speaking, but his business background speaks for itself. I don’t think he’ll get as much done as he says he will, but none of them will. If Romney knows what’s good for him, he’ll play up that McCain comment, and others, and if people listen, McCain is finished with conservatives.

I predict Rush and others will tear McCain apart tomorrow.