I personally find it annoying when songs are on auto-play on blogs, so I will probably take Taxman off auto as of tomorrow. Today I just couldn't help myself. So both of you who read my blog can just deal with it!
UPDATE -- I took the song off. Too annoying ....
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Be Careful What you Wish For ....
It's official. America chooses form over substance! OK, no big surprise there. But remember the old saying, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Well, American, you got it. The next question is, what will be the consequences? We don't know enough about Obama to know how he will govern, except that he is by far the most radically liberal President this country has elected.
I take small comfort in the fact that the Democrats did not get a super-majority in the Senate.
It is time for the Republican party to do some serious house cleaning (some of which the democrats took care of for us last night). It's time for new leadership and new faces. The old ones have abandoned too many of the principles that defined the party and made it great. It's a shame that the greatest expansion of government (until Obama gets in the big-boy chair) came from the right.
I take small comfort in the fact that the Democrats did not get a super-majority in the Senate.
It is time for the Republican party to do some serious house cleaning (some of which the democrats took care of for us last night). It's time for new leadership and new faces. The old ones have abandoned too many of the principles that defined the party and made it great. It's a shame that the greatest expansion of government (until Obama gets in the big-boy chair) came from the right.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Coke in the Drinking Fountains
When I was in elementary school we had class elections. Each year, one of the candidates would promise that as class president, he or she would get chocolate milk for lunch (at Onaway School chocolate milk was not sold in our lunch room) and coke in the drinking fountains. I think that most of us can agree that the idea of installing coca-cola drinking fountains at an elementary school is just a bit ridiculous. But guess who would win, time after time. The emotional reaction of K-4 children was enough to secure victory because the children lacked the cognitive reasoning to understand the absurdity of the idea.
Deja-vu.
The exact same ignorance will likely catepult Obama to victory. Watch this grown woman explain why she is going to vote for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Obama has promised programs, benefits and entitlements that he can't possibly deliver. There isn't enough wealth that he can steal from the rich to pay for everything he says he will do. But that doesn't matter to the Obama voter. The Obama voter just loves the false sense of security that someone else is going to do it for them.
Obama, he's going to give us coke in the drinking fountains. I'm going to start lobbying now for diet because, between you and me, America has put on a little weight lately.
Deja-vu.
The exact same ignorance will likely catepult Obama to victory. Watch this grown woman explain why she is going to vote for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Obama has promised programs, benefits and entitlements that he can't possibly deliver. There isn't enough wealth that he can steal from the rich to pay for everything he says he will do. But that doesn't matter to the Obama voter. The Obama voter just loves the false sense of security that someone else is going to do it for them.
Obama, he's going to give us coke in the drinking fountains. I'm going to start lobbying now for diet because, between you and me, America has put on a little weight lately.
Monday, November 3, 2008
It's OK, It Doesn't Mean You're A Racist
A message for those who may lack the courage to go out tomorrow and vote for anyone other than the Chosen One himself, who sits on high ready to lead this country to his pipe-dream utopia:
Despite all that you have heard, you actually can vote for McCain and still not be a racist. Of course, you may be branded a racist by many on the left, but what can you do?
Despite all that you have heard, you actually can vote for McCain and still not be a racist. Of course, you may be branded a racist by many on the left, but what can you do?
Something Shorter
I see by the complete lack of comments that nobody has actually made it to the end of my last post. So, here is something a little shorter.
I know I mentioned this briefly in my last post, but it merits a little more discussion. I have just listened again to the audio of Obama talking about his plans for the coal industry. The real kicker here is not just his ideas on how to bankrupt coal electric plants. Obama actually says that under his administration, the cost of electricity will "necessarily skyrocket." Do not believe whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to put on this. You can listen to BO in his own words. He actually wants to cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Why? Because he agrees with the environmentalist theory that energy prices must be artificially elevated in order to reduce demand to "save the planet." Think about it for a minute. Obama wants to raise your energy prices. A lot. But that won't just affect your own electric bill. It will affect your employer's bill. It will affect the bills paid by all the companies that produce the goods that you buy. On top of all the new taxes businesses are going to be paying, their overhead will increase due to the skyrocketing energy prices. Not only will that cost additional jobs, it will throw one more setback at American companies trying to compete internationally. What a great idea!
We've heard this argument with gas prices. For some time the left was complaining that we need higher gas prices, $3-$4 per gallon like Europe, so that people will stop using so much oil and eventually reduce carbon emissions. Funny, since we've had those gas prices, you haven't noticed the dems out celebrating in the streets, have you? The democrats have screamed just as loud as anyone about it. Why? Because everyone is angry that they are paying so much at the pump! Plus, they think they can just blame it on Bush. Think about the effect higher gas prices have had on the economy. The cost to produce and ship goods has increased dramatically. I guarantee you that jobs have been lost because companies can't afford to do business with those prices, particularly trucking companies. Either that, or the cost has simply been passed on to you. This is, after all, like Obama's promise of increased taxes on corporations. Guess what? Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from you and pass them on. More taxes on corporations equals higher prices for you. When the prices get so high that you decide you don't want to buy anymore, the company may cut prices, but it can only cut so much before it goes under.
I'm sure that when the cost of electricity skyrockets you won't see the dems stand up at a press conference to say "you're welcome, America! We finally got the job done!" I'm guessing they'll find a way to blame someone else, as usual.
I know I mentioned this briefly in my last post, but it merits a little more discussion. I have just listened again to the audio of Obama talking about his plans for the coal industry. The real kicker here is not just his ideas on how to bankrupt coal electric plants. Obama actually says that under his administration, the cost of electricity will "necessarily skyrocket." Do not believe whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to put on this. You can listen to BO in his own words. He actually wants to cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Why? Because he agrees with the environmentalist theory that energy prices must be artificially elevated in order to reduce demand to "save the planet." Think about it for a minute. Obama wants to raise your energy prices. A lot. But that won't just affect your own electric bill. It will affect your employer's bill. It will affect the bills paid by all the companies that produce the goods that you buy. On top of all the new taxes businesses are going to be paying, their overhead will increase due to the skyrocketing energy prices. Not only will that cost additional jobs, it will throw one more setback at American companies trying to compete internationally. What a great idea!
We've heard this argument with gas prices. For some time the left was complaining that we need higher gas prices, $3-$4 per gallon like Europe, so that people will stop using so much oil and eventually reduce carbon emissions. Funny, since we've had those gas prices, you haven't noticed the dems out celebrating in the streets, have you? The democrats have screamed just as loud as anyone about it. Why? Because everyone is angry that they are paying so much at the pump! Plus, they think they can just blame it on Bush. Think about the effect higher gas prices have had on the economy. The cost to produce and ship goods has increased dramatically. I guarantee you that jobs have been lost because companies can't afford to do business with those prices, particularly trucking companies. Either that, or the cost has simply been passed on to you. This is, after all, like Obama's promise of increased taxes on corporations. Guess what? Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from you and pass them on. More taxes on corporations equals higher prices for you. When the prices get so high that you decide you don't want to buy anymore, the company may cut prices, but it can only cut so much before it goes under.
I'm sure that when the cost of electricity skyrockets you won't see the dems stand up at a press conference to say "you're welcome, America! We finally got the job done!" I'm guessing they'll find a way to blame someone else, as usual.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
No Representation Without Taxation!
I have a feeling this is going to be long, and I don't have a lot of time. So I am just going to type, spell-check, and let it rip. I apologize in advance for any errors.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
