Woops! Terrorism Still a Problem!

Yes, my headline is dripping with sarcasm. I thought that Barack Obama, The Messiah, was going to heal the world with his rhetoric of change. This weekend however was a grim reminder of what people all over the world are up against.

Islamo-fascism is alive and well. Like Bush or hate him. One thing he has done since 2001 is that he has kept America safe. NO terror attacks have occured in this country. 0. Nada. We have had alerts, including in New York last weekend, but no attacks.

We are at War. People may have grown war weary, but make no mistakes. We are at war. These EVIL people want to anihillate the non-Muslim world. They will stop at nothing. There is little chance that they will be habilitated. It is a scarry thought indeed.

What makes me sad, above all, is that it may just take another terrorist attack on our own people in America to reawaken the people of this country as to just what we are up against.

We live in terrifying times indeed!

Redistribution of Wealth and "Fairness"

The Obama campaign has repeatedly said that their tax plan is "fair" and that the rich needs to pay more. They contend that the tax policies of the Bush Administration has helped to expand the gap between the rich and the poor, and they essentally need to pay their fair share. The implication is that the middle class pays a disproportionate amount of federal income tax. Lets examine this premise.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2006 the top 10% of wage earners in the USA, (who make over 100,000 per year and up pay 70.79 % of the federal income taxes. Furthermore, if you look back, according to the same website in 1999, the same top 10% paid 66.45%. So the so-called rich are paying a higher percentage of federal income tax than ever before.

There are two facts that must be said. To cut taxes across the board is to give the rich a bigger tax break than the middle class. If you cut taxes by 5% across the board, the rich get a bigger tax break. Why? because they pay so much more in taxes. Take for example a person whose taxable income is $500,000 per year, at 35% they pay $175,000. Take a person who's taxable income is $50,000, at 25%(Which is the tax bracket for this income group)they will pay $12,500. So if the government lowers tax rates across the board by 5%. They person making 50K will now pay 10,000 in federal taxes. The 500K income earner will pay $150,000. The rich person's tax break will be more than the middle class earner's tax bill. Both income earners recieved the percentage of a tax break, but the "rich" person's tax bill goes down by a much higher dollar amount.

Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth. He said as much to Joe the Plumber. He said that "if you spread the wealth around, it is good for everyone." One the one hand to many, this might sound good. They might think, "Yeah, stick it to those greedy bastards." But one has to understand the consequences of puntative taxes. The fact of capitalism is that the "rich" employ the rest of us. Whether it is a huge corporation like Haliburton or Microsoft, or a small business owner who employs 15-20 people, lower and middle class Americans are employed by people like this. If the government under an Obama administration decides to raise taxes on Corporations and small business owners, these new taxes will drag the economy down. Any company, large or small, is in business to make money, not to employ people. If profits are not there, the company will cease to exist. A company that has its taxes raised, will have to cut jobs to keep its profit margins or risk its ability to compete.

The last thing this country needs, with the economy in its current state, are tax and economic policies that will hurt and push the economy into a deep recession or worse.

Oh, how I wish that Mitt Romney were the man at the top of the GOP ticket. A brilliant economic mind was thrown under the party bus by single issue voters.

Response to David Brooks Comment about Sarah Palin

David Brooks of the New York Times recently said that Sarah Palin "represents a fatal cancer of the Republican Party." His intellectual bloviating can be found here.

I love how he can say this about Sarah Palin when he knows so little about her. I got news for him. She is not a cancer, but rather she is a shining light of conservatism that the Republican Party needs. She has taken on corruption in her own party in Alaska and is wildly popular in her state.

Every intellectual likes to paint any Conservative as a simple minded dolt. If that Conservative is a powerful politician, he gets even more stupid. Ronald Reagan, who was a man of ideas, was anything but stupid. He was a man of ideas, as Brooks puts it, but he was so much more. He also was a man of action who got things done. The left tried to paint him, first as a stupid talking head former "B" movie star, then as a senile old man. Most of the republicans that swept into power in 1994 were dismissed as idiots. George W. Bush (in my opinion not a conservative), is consistently caricatured as a simple minded religious nut. Dan Quayle was destroyed by the press and painted as a stupid idiot.

Since liberals have nothing new to offer, they are going after Sarah Palin in much the same way. She is being painted as a simple minded woman from a the back country. People like Brooks say that she is a cancer, because of her "anti-inellectualism."

Let me explain why the Republican party is in trouble. It is not because of a lack of ideas. It is because Republicans in the House and Senate have 1)become to moderate, and 2)spent like Democrats used to. Had Republicans in the House stayed true to the conservative ideals that got them elected in 1994, they would have not lost control of the House of Representatives. President Bush, apart from trying to keep America safe against Islamofascism, has consistently departed from Conservative principals. Had he adhered to such principles, he would not be nearly as unpopular as he has become.

Sarah Palin scares liberals to death. She, in my opinion, is Ronald Reagan in heels and lipstick. Her weakness is not her lack of experience (She does have more experience than Obamma). Her weakness is that she has to carry the water for Senator McCain. McCain losing the election will not be the end of her. Give her four years to run her country effectively and prepare to run for President and watch out.

Liberals know this, and that is why they are doing everything they can to discredit her. Their attemps to smear and discredit her will not work, and if libs continue to underestimate her, they will find her wonderful family in the White House in 2012.

Keep on truckin' Sarah.

The Truth About Obama's Letter to Secretary Paulson

So, I got tired of Barack Obama claiming that he had written a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson claiming that he sounded the warning bell of the current financial crisis. Here is the quote from the first debate at the University of Mississippi.

Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.

Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it

Obama again said the same thing in the second debate. The key here is the context. His comments were in response to Senator McCain talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac how these two GSE's were a major cause of the current financial crisis. Obama has repeatedly said he wrote this letter warning of these problems.

Well, I found the letter. Here is the link to the letter on Barak Obama's Senate website.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/

Barak did write a letter, but it has nothing to do with the context the current financial crisis. The opening reads as follows:

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

The rest of the letter goes on to detail what he thinks should happen at this "summit" and what should be discussed. Nowhere did the letter point out how these foreclosures are at the heart of a coming financial crisis. He did point out that lower income people were losing their homes, and more would if something was not done. While it is admirable that Obama showes concern for the poor losing their homes, this cannot and should not be confused with Barack Obama sounding a warning bell about sub prime mortgages being at the heart of an impending financial crisis. The closest thing that I found to any warning is in the next excerpt:

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

I have highlighted the latter part of the post to illustrate Obama's lack of leadership on this issue. He speaks of mortgage market turmoil and says that HIS COLLEAGUES will develop legislation. IF this is a reference to the problems at Fannie and Freddie, which I don't think it is, Obama leaves dealing with this issue to his colleagues. I don't know about you, but this is not what I want to hear from someone who is supposed to be leading America.

Remembering 9/11 Again

It has been seven years since the attacks on 9/11/2001. I can remember feeling so unsafe for so long after the attacks, wondering if another attack were imminent. I am thankful that President Bush made the tough choices, regardless of the political ramifications. While the liberal left continues to rail against President Bush, I am confident that honest history will, at least on this issue, write positively about our 43rd President. I for one am proud to have voted for him twice.

Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men said, "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." President Bush has stood on "that wall" for seven years. He has made the tough choices regardless of the political consequences. He has had the personal fortitude necessary to maintain his vigil despite the fact that his political allies have left his side.

I remember a poster that a grocery store chain gave away following 9/11 that had a picture of the World Trade Center towers and a headline stating, "We Will Never Forget." So many of us have forgotten. We have forgotten how unsafe we all felt following those attacks. We have forgotten because those who have been entrusted with our saftey have kept us safe. As we forget, and diminish the threat of terrorism that is still very real, we diminish the gravity of the loss of innocent life that occured on this day seven years ago.

On the anniversary of this solemn day I am reminded of those who gave their life by bringing down their own plane in that field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. They were the first heros to give their life in the War on Terror. To echo John McCain's scripture reference today in his remarks, in John 15:13, the Savior said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Those people on United flight 93 gave their lives that morning for their "friends" that they never met. True Americans honor you on this day. God Speed.

Why a new energy policy is essential in America.

No. Not because we need to save a planet suffering from man-made global climate change. I simply don't believe that this is a crisis. But rather, it makes sound economic policy for the United States of America to not be dependent on foriegn oil and energy.

By purchasing the vast majority of our oil from countries that would destroy us if they think they could do it and get away with it, the U.S. is indirectly sponsorning both Marxist Dictators (Putin in Russia, Chavez in Venesuala) and state sponsored terrorism. We simply, as Americans, can no longer let this happen.

We have to have a two pronged attack. First. We need to utilize our own domestic supplies, especially the oil deposits in ANWAR and the Outer Continential Shelf. We also need to start using coal-to-oil technologies which apparently are easier and more cost effective than oil shale.

But we must also start investing heavily in alternative energy sources. While I do not think that global warming (climate change) is a real problem, I do think it behooves us as caretakers of the planet to be more proactive in keeping our enviornment clean and safe, and to clean up our own messes. I would love to be able to one day get into my hydrogen powered car and drive to work, knowing that my automobile is not poluting one bit. This would be a great unintended consequence of a sound energy policy.

I never understood this until recently, but a good domestic energy policy is coupled with foriegn policy. We as Americans cannot stand by and allow billions of dollars each day be sent to rouge nations simply because we are too lazy or complacent to want to do anything about it. This "head-in-the-sand" way of dealing with things will only spell our doom.

Count me in for McCain-Palin.

I have to say. I was excited about Sarah Palin being picked as John McCain's running mate. I still have my reservations about McCain's conservative credentials, I have to say that I am on board with the Republican Party. I am100% for this ticket, and I hope and pray that the American people vote these two into the White House.

Tonight, Sarah Palin gave a speech that politicians only dream of. She delivered her speech with panache, grace, femininity and power. She told us her story, proud that she is from a small town and comfortable in her own skin. She took shots at Obama, that I think will resonate with Americans. She was funny, and self depricating. In all, it was one of the best political speeches that I have seen in years.

As I have watched in disgust, the personal and chauvinistic attacks that have been levied against her, I grew more and more angry and frustrated. But after her speech tonight I realized something. This is all the liberal left has. She is the worst nightmare for the Democrats. She is beautiful, articulate, witty, and sharp as a tack. But what is really bad for the libs, is that she walks the walk. She is truely a reformer and a whistleblower. She is pro life, and lives it. She is a successful, CONSERVATIVE, mother of five.

In the end the criticisms of Sarah Palin ring hollow, and what the "drive by" media may have done is propelled this "everywoman" into the spotlight, and might cause such a backlash against elitism and sexism that might propel the McCain Palin ticket into the White House.