I have frequently reminded Nary an Original Thought readers of the sovereignty of God, in all circumstances. This morning I'm wondering if someone would return the favor….
Somehow the death of roughly 4 million babies during the reign of Obama the Merciless fits into God's eternal plan. I'm having trouble understanding how.
Did you hear that clanging metal sound followed by the whoosh of fighter jets flying over head, with synthesized punching sounds in the background? That can only mean one thing…
The election results coverage is revved up. Get your free cup of coffee from Starbucks and settle in for a long and entertaining night!
When a childhood friend of mine joined the Marines, I got a call from Uncle Sam. He wanted to know how long I'd known Dan. He wanted to know if Dan had ever espoused any radical beliefs, or if he had associated with any groups that had. He asked if Dan had ever lived overseas, or if he had ever said anything that would indicate disloyalty to the U.S.A. They wanted to make sure that he was qualified to receive security clearance he would need to become an intelligence officer. As I understand it, Dan spent the next few years watching a whole lot of al Jazeera.
The point is, the military takes their security pretty seriously. If you come from a radical background, including associations with people or groups that are less-than-patriotic, you probably won't be granted any meaningful level of security acceess. With this in mind, John Washburn, who is ex-military, makes a great point:
[B]ased on Obama’s prior associations, I can safely say that obtaining an upper-level security clearance would be impossible for him. The minute the Pentagon discovered his Wright association alone – never mind the one with a domestic terrorist – he would be denied access to any significant national security information. If he joined the military, he would not be granted the most basic security clearance. Yet, as President and Commander in Chief, Obama would have access at the highest level. This man wouldn’t be qualified to be a White House staffer, much less President unless, of course, the American people voted to put him in charge. And there are some who believe his associations don’t matter? Yeah, right.
This reminds me of that old saying about the fox guarding the hen house. Use your vote wisely, American.
Anthony Esolen lays it out like this. We all hate taxes, but on some level everyone pretty much agrees that they are necessary. While we don't like it, most of us are willing to pay up a bit to support a government that can "do some things that we cannot do, or can hardly do, on our own." Everyone pays in, everyone benefits. It's a fair deal all around.
But what happens when taxes are used not for the sake of something we each have a share in, as roads and armies? Then we might see the tax code used, for instance, as a powerful weapon of social control — and examples of this are everywhere to be found in our country; in fact, it's hard for me to determine whether the tax code as it stands is primarily a revenue gathering device for Washington, or a behavior controlling device…. One can collect taxes in order to rig up a vision of what a utopian society would look like, regardless of the fact that the vision is not shared by everyone, or that there is no tangible and immediate good that the taxes would purchase, in whose benefit everyone would share (as is the case with roads, and possibly with schools). And that's no more than state sanctioned theft.
This is what Obama has in mind when he tells a plumber that it's better for everyone when we "spread the wealth around". When the government can take your money by compulsion (pay up or lose your house and go to jail!) in order to support its social engineering agenda, they (not you) get to decide where that money is spent. While it may make you feel good to think that your tax dollars go to support a homeless shelter in some big city somewhere, have you thought about your tax dollars that went to the Planned Parenthood down the street from it? If you think you have a duty to vote for the guy who will help out the homeless, you might also want to think about your duty to not participate in the slaughter, by the millions, of babies who typically are from the same neighborhood as the homeless guy. You can't take credit for one, but not the other.
Bret McAtee asks a great question:
Presently, the bottom 40% of income earners pay zero income taxes. The top 20% pay 80% of all the federal income taxes. Therefore, it is not possible to give the bottom 40% a tax cut because they pay no money to the government. So this begs the question: How is Barack Obama proposing to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans?
I'm sure that you're as shocked as I am to discover a factual inconsistency in Barry's campaign message.
So, if it isn't a tax cut, what is it? Marxist wealth redistribution, that's what. Take money from the Rich (i.e. the people who created/earned it) and give it to the "less fortunate" so we can make it a little better for everyone.
The problem with this strategy is that wealth redistribution actually leads to less wealth to be distributed. When the government raises taxes, they take money out of the economy. Think of it as the opposite of investing. Businesses have less capital to invest in productivity (jobs, machines, buildings, etc.), so productivity goes down–taking "wealth" with it. The poorest among us are hit the hardest, so more people end up on the welfare roles. Trying to keep up, the government raises taxes. You see where this is going…
This is simple economics, folks. This is why socialism doesn't work. You can vote for the guy who promises free ice cream for everyone, but somewhere along the way you should ask what that free ice cream *really* costs.
If you watched or listened to the debate Wednesday night, you'll remember Barry taking McCain to task, saying that 100% of his ads have been negative. McCain refuted this allegation, and BHO asserted that "It absolutely is true."
Sorry, Barack. It isn't. According to politifact.com, your $3,000 pants are on fire. The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that, to date, 73% of McCain's ads have been negative, compared to 61% of Obama's. If you count the nightly news' coverage of McCain as negative ads (how could you not?), I'd say we're about even.
Here's an ad McCain ran during the DNC, on the night when Barry accepted the party's nomination:
Unless "Job well done" is some sort of coded racial slur (and I'm sure many of his zealots would be able to construe it as such), that ad didn't sound negative to me. They say you're not supposed to use words like "always" and "never" during arguments, and I would guess that "100%" is synonymous with "always" in this case. Certainly Barack knew of at least this one ad, meaning that his 100% claim was false.
So, here's a question for the class. Why did Obama say that 100% of McCain's ads had been negative when he knew it wasn't true? Did he think he could just get away with it? Is this the sort of *change* we need in D.C.?
Despite her claims that Democrats would "create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history", Speaker Pelosi may still have a little cleaning up to do. From Fox News:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband's real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the "culture of corruption" when Republicans did it.
It's tough for me to see how funneling a hundred grand into her husband's business is related to her quest to save the planet, but what do I know?
Speaking of saving the planet, the Obamessiah may actually be saving the world. At least you would think so based on the sources of his campaign funding. On Monday, Newsmax.com reported on the influx of funds the Obama campaign is receiving from foreign sources. Obama has received "more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million." Out of these 11,500 contributions, about 1,400 have come from confirmed U.S. diplomats or military personnel, totaling $201,680 of the $33.8 million, or about .6%. Oddly enough, "U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign." According to the Newsmax article, "Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted."
Such laxity has allowed Obama to receive millions of dollars from contributors in places like Iran, North Korea, Libya, Nigeria, and Palestine. I'm sure all of these donors had our best interests in mind as they slid their credit cards Obama's way.
The article also mentions that Obama has received millions of dollars from undisclosed contributors who allegedly fall below the $200/contributor level at which formal disclosure is required. Almost $223 million has come from such sources. That would require just north of 1.1 million contributors at $200 each. Possible, maybe, but probably not likely. Multiple campaign watchdog groups have asked the Obama campaign for a list of these donors but have never received a response. In contrast, the McCain campaign makes this information available online.
In 2006, Pelosi rode into town claiming that her and her Democrat buddies were going to "change" everything. We've seen how well that went. Now, Barack wants us all to think that he's the candidate of "change". Fool the American voters once, shame on you. Fool the American voters twice… I sure hope not.
Last week, Joe Biden lectured the wealthy among us, telling them that "It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
Apparently, a system where "the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns" (source) isn't fair enough to the "little guy". Lest you think that these proportions are simply a product of the "super rich" making gobs of money while the little guy scrapes by, consider that, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, this top 1% "earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes." Yes, the top 1% pays almost 40% of the total tax bill. To be in this privileged class you would have had to bring home more than $364,000 in 2005. That's a lot of money, but not exactly what I would call being "super-rich".
Let's leave the upper crust alone for a moment and look a little further down the scale. What about the top quarter? They carried 86% of the nation's tax burden. The top 50% accounted for 96.93% of the bill, leaving the bottom half with a 3.07% share. The cutoff for the top half was a whopping $30,881. Yeah, it's high time we stick it to those greedy so-and-sos who are making $30k a year. How do they sleep at night?
But Biden stands by his comments and, according to the Wall Street Journal, has now "upped the ante, thundering that he also has Jesus in his corner. 'Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.'" And anyone who knows the scriptures will tell you that the way to take care of "people who need the help the most" is to raise taxes so we can, according to Holy Joe, "take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."
What? That's not in the Bible? It says that the church, not the state, is supposed to care for the poor? Oh.
Aside from being entirely unbiblical, Biden's formula has a few other problems. From the WSJ:
Regarding taxes and social justice, the issue is whether the high taxes that Mr. Biden favors promote economic growth and prosperity, not least for America's poorest citizens. There he doesn't have evidence on his side. Studies from around the world, including the annual Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, conclusively indicate that countries that keep taxes low tend to have the least amount of poverty. (emphasis mine)
But, as I've said before, the heart of the issue is that Holy Joe really, really, really cares about the poor among us. We know it's true, because he says he does. So, it shouldn't matter if his plan of increasing taxes will actually hurt the poor instead of helping them. It's the thought that counts.
And, while we're counting, the WSJ article mentions that "Mr. Biden and his wife recently released their tax returns, and they reported an average of $380, or 0.2% of their income, in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period." While that won't land him in the top 1% of any list, at least he and his running mate are on the same page on this one.
Just remember. They're from the party that cares about the little guy.
Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible”
and then…
Obama on Biden's Initial Opposition to AIG Bailout: "Joe Should Have Waited"
Frankly, I think they are both right. Neither of them is deserving of a seat in the White House.
in 2003, President Bush proposed a "significant regulatory overhaul" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in order to "determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios." It didn't go anywhere. Why?
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The Democrats' priority on maintaining "affordable housing" is laughable. "Affordable housing" means low property values, which equates to smaller mortgages and, thereby, smaller mortgage payments. Under the banner of anti-discrimination and "war on poverty" policies, Democrats in the Nineties encouraged lenders (in the form of government backing) to loan money to people who were highly unlikely to pay it back. From Investor's Business Daily Editorials:
It was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
Adding more home buyers into the market, thanks to artificially lax lending guidelines, drove up home prices. In order to keep housing "affordable", interest rates were suppressed (underpricing the risk associated with them), which drove more home owners into the market, which increased prices. This is how a bubble is created. Bush wisely saw that this cycle would eventually lead to major financial problems (like the ones in the papers today), but the Dems didn't want to put any "pressure" on Fannie or Freddie.
Jump forward a couple of years to when John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. McCain warned us that "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." It appears that his prediction was accurate, as the tab for the recent bailouts comes to more than $1,000 for every man woman and child in the country.
McCain's bill died in committee, under the leadership of Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee. Oddly enough, a scandal unearthed this summer involved Dodd receiving discounts and preferential treatment through Countrywide's V.I.P. program during 2003 and 2004. According to wikipedia, "in 2006 Countrywide financed 20% of all mortgages in the United States, at a value of about 3.5% of United States GDP, a proportion greater than any other single mortgage lender." Countrywide would have been directly affected by increased regulations, but thankfully they had a friend in high places looking out for them.
Speaking of Countrywide, during the primaries Obama accused Countrywide of "infecting the economy" and helping to create the home foreclosure crisis we are now in the middle of. However, when it came time to look for a running mate, Obama turned to James Johnson to help with the search. According to the New York Sun, Johnson received more than $7 million from the same Countrywide sweetheart program as Dodd.
You can tell a lot about a man by the friends he keeps, but if Obama's link to Johnson and Johnson's link to Countrywide isn't enough for you, consider this from John Gibson of Fox News:
Lehman Brothers’ collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama.
Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee.
So now Obama and Joe Biden, the running mate James Johnson picked for him, are telling us that Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.
My lord, take a look at what — who got us in this hole, whose policies. This has been a Republican philosophy of letting Wall Street do what they want and the middle class be damned. It's about time we change it. If I sound like I'm angry, I am fighting mad for middle-class people who have been the scapegoat of this economy because of the policies of the McCains and the Bushes.
Obama is singing the same song, mocking McCain for stating that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" (they are), and claiming that "what we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it. John McCain won't. And that's the choice for Americans in this election."
Yes, Americans have a choice this election. On the one hand is a leader who has decades of leadership experience and that warned us all about this problem years before it came to fruition. On the other hand is a politician with less than half a decade of leadership experience, whose party directly contributed to this problem while his historical revisionism has led him to blame everyone but those who are truly responsible for the crisis at hand. I don't think it's too tough to see which brand of "leadership" this nation needs.
RSS 2.0
