An Article from Steve Backiel - Very Good Read

Steven M. Backiel is the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County

The Non-Prosecuted Crimes of Our Century

Our history books tell us of the great conflicts of mankind and the role our nation has played in each. Children in history classes can tell you the dates and countries involved in each World War and can show you a map of what nations stood and which fell. Today, those in school will be able to pinpoint Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and give details on each conflict. The question, however, remains to be asked and answers are not forthcoming from our current or future leaders when it comes to the issue of Genocide on the continent of Africa.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide- to which the United States is a signatory- obliges the United Nations to act to prevent genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy a national, racial or religious group by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction”

Investigating the twentieth century, there would be many examples of genocide that our history books and professors fail to cover with the same determination that they would, say WWI or II. Examples are the 1915 Armenian Genocide one million dead, Russian Civil War 1918-1922 over twelve million killed, and China’s Mao Tse-Tung murdered forty nine million people during the eight year period of the “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution”.

If you’re wondering if our leaders are informed about the crime of genocide simply take these “acts” of genocide publicized by the movie Hotel Rwanda as a case in point.

April 6 Rwandan Armed Forces and Hutu Militia set up roadblocks and go house to house killing Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians. Thousands die on the first day. The UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda stands by while the slaughter occurs.
April 7 Belgian soldiers with the UN assigned to guard the Hutu Prime Minister are captured and tortured to death. President Clinton issues a statement expressing “his concern and condolences”.
April 9 France and Belgium send troops to rescue their citizens. American civilians are also rescued. The Red Cross estimates that tens of thousands of Rwandans have been murdered.
April 14 the UN Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force deployment from 2500 to 270.
April 21 The Red Cross estimates hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are now dead.
The UN Security Council passes a resolution condemning the killings but omits the word “genocide” had the term been used, the UN would have been legally obligated to act to “prevent and punish the perpetrators”.
May 2 White House starts holding daily confidential briefings on Rwanda.
May 3 President Clinton signs a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD25), created after a review of the nations peacekeeping policies. PDD 25 aims to limit U.S. Military involvement in international peacekeeping operations.
May 13 U.N. votes on restoring UNAMIR’s strength in Rwanda; however the US Representative Madeline Albright, delays the vote for four days.

May 17 the UN agrees to send 5500 troops and acknowledges that “acts of genocide may have been committed” however deployment is delayed over arguments of who will pay the bill and provide equipment.
The Red Cross estimates 500,000 Rwandans have been killed.

June 22 no sign of UN deployment, the Security Council authorizes the deployment of French forces to south-west Rwanda “Operation Turquoise” creates “safe areas”.
Mid-July although disease claims many lives in the refugee camps, the genocide is over- 800,000 Rwandans have been murdered in 100 days.

The crimes of genocide continue today in Sudan, Chad and the Congo, they are driven by Islamic religious extremists and financed by Africa’s corrupt governments. Yet there is no national outcry for peace in these African nations, the US, even after a unanimous Congressional vote (422-0) in July 2006 calling the human rights abuses by their rightful name of genocide, isn’t sending troops to aid the people from losing generations of their citizenry.

We disregard the fact that 3 million lives have been extinguished in the Sudan, over 3.5 million have been killed in Eastern Congo, and there are 2.5 million people displaced from Darfur alone that now face death from starvation and disease as the Sudanese government and Janjaweed militias attempt to block all humanitarian aid from reaching them. To bring the Sudan and Congo numbers into a clear focus you would be talking about the murder of everyone living in the states of Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island and to bring the refugee numbers from Darfur into focus, imagine the entire population of the state of Nevada being displaced. All the warning signs of Rwanda have been seen time and time again and yet here we are, the worlds last super power, still debating what is an “act of genocide” and what constitutes the “crime of genocide” and while we struggle with definitions more and more people are terrorized, maimed and murdered and it appears no one will ever be held responsible for the death of a continent.

Craving Religion and False Idols

We as humans crave God and religion. Whether it is because there is a God or because of some fluke of evolution, I do not know. What I do know is that in the pit of everyone’s soul is the desire to cling to something.

When we reject religion, we turn to something else. Some cling to the big bang theory as an explanation as to the start of the process of life, though they cannot explain how it happened and cannot put together a single experiment or equation to prove how nothing became something, became something in the form of the entire universe. Interestingly enough, something the big-bang-no-God theorists conveniently forget is that the concept of the big bang theory came from a priest and was roundly rejected by scientists because it meant that time had a beginning and the implications of this was too much for scientists of that time.

Other anti-God-religionists cling to global warming as their religion. A consensus has been reached, they cry, that doomsday is upon us if we do not do something. Unfortunately for them, there is less evidence to support the supposed catastrophe due to global warming (excuse me, now that we seem to no longer be warming “global climate change”) than there is to prove that Christ rose from the dead. I wouldn’t say that too loud, however, because for the global warming religion this is blasphemy that will subject you to public ridicule, humiliation, and exclusion. For those of the global warming religion, all opposition must be suppressed so that there is no one to explore the distinct lack of scientific proof behind their prophesies. I wouldn’t bother to point this out to them, however, as their dogmatic convictions leave no room for intelligent conversation that would disprove their closely held beliefs.

I had an interesting conversation the other day about the global warming fanatics. The hypothesis was proposed that the global warming religionists do not just cling to global warming out of some lost sense of God, but also because of its economic underpinnings. To address the supposed catastrophe waiting for us do to global warming would require drastic government intervention and funding. For those of the entitlement persuasion who seem to hold no distrust for the government when their party is in power, the idea of an even bigger monolith of government that would impose a system of rules that would help knock out economic inequality by bringing us all down to the same level (and it would be down, not up, as government involvement has never really helped to bring anyone out of poverty, but has sure helped to shove a lot of people down through misguided attempts to help)is an ideal clarion call to arms. And global warming gives them the battle cry they need to start off on their crusade.

Ah, it is the fault of those who crave more (and consequently work harder for more) that are at fault for the worlds ills, what with their cravings for more and bigger and better, that is at fault for everything. It is, of course, never the fault of those who make poor choices throughout their lives and never succeed. If you villainize success, then you are the better person for not working hard. This thought process sits well with my generation who have been spoiled throughout life and have been taught that just trying (even half-assedly) is enough. They can sit and smoke pot between breaks from their coffee shop job and feel superior to the doctor and lawyer quickly grabbing a cup of caffeinated sustenance on their way long hours of work to earn good money.

These coffeehouse baristas do not need to feel bad for never growing up and striving for more because their low carbon foot print due to not being able to afford a car makes them better than the doctor who saves lives for money because he drives his dastardly car from his nice house in the suburbs to the hospital across town. Global warming gives an excuse not to strive for success and gives an excuse to knock down those who work hard to benefit from the capitalist system that has given us so much.

And capitalism has given us a lot in life. The United states, with its traditional capitalist mindset, has always had greater job creation than all of socialist Europe combined. Even the current economic crisis does not stem from capitalist ideals, but instead from government interference in the markets. However, just as the global warming believers conveniently ignore that the Manne hockey stick (the graph that set off the global warming conversion) has been disproven, they will ignore the socialist tendencies that pushed the United States towards its current economic collapse. The truth is that if there was no CRA and no Fannie or Freddie, there would be no economic collapse. But with the Democrats gaining control of the government and the global warming religion holding revival services in honor of their idolic One, this is one true story that will be drowned out by the chants of a false religion.

CNN hates Palin

So I was watching CNN this morning and the bias was so thick you could cut it with a knife. I had been going through the news channels and first CNN had one of their journalists interviewing a priest from the Catholic church. This was actually a very good story. The journalist was fair and unbiased. I decided to continue to watch CNN. This was a bad idea on my part.

The next journalist up had a panel discussion of sorts on Palin’s recent tour through the media. This interviewer doesn’t even deserve the name journalist. In case you were unaware (which I was), Palin apparently waged a culture war this past election and lost. As she was the VP on the ticket, I find this an interesting assertion. I was also unaware we were in a culture war. I think knowing of a culture war is a prerequisite to losing it, but I think CNN says I'm wrong.

Also, did you know the mainstream media never talked about her son Trigg being the possible son of her daughter? As I don’t read daily kos (the blog that started the story), I wonder how I heard of this story. As I distinctly hearing the rumor on CNN, amongst other major news outlets, I am confused now what is considered “mainstream media.” Or maybe the panel was a bunch of idiots that are so ramped up on hating Palin that if she found a cure for cancer, they’d try to make it a bad thing.

Also, apparently her smart responses to the recent round of interviews is not because she is smart, but because she is devious and manipulative (I do not make this up – this is actually what one of the panelists said). I wonder if they have ever listened to Obama (their savior as far as I can figure), or compared his speeches.

But I guess as I am apparently bitterly clinging to my guns and religion and selfishly clinging to the money that I earned and think would be a waste if dispersed through Obama’a magical tax cut (you can’t cut 0 my friends and 38% of American’s don’t pay taxes, so unless 96 + 38 now equals 100, Obama’s tax cut is a pack of deceit and manipulation), maybe my opinion doesn’t count.

To understand Obama’s tax plan see my earlier posts on the topic.

To think why it won’t work, let’s think where the money is going. The plan is apparently a trickle up approach. Well considering the bottom 38% aren’t paying taxes, I am going to say we are already in a mixed trickle down trickle up and the middle class is disappearing so I don’t know how well this idea is going to work. Well, actually I do. Let’s follow the money under the Obama tax plan.

First, tax the hell out of those at the top or almost the top, including small businesses that employ millions of people (which composes more than 5%, but again Obama’s tax cut plan is magic so little details like this don’t matter). Next, take the money and redistribute it (reminiscent of Marxism). When you redistribute give the most to those who pay the least (i.e, nothing). Now the bottom 40% or so now sits with checks of possibly $2,000 or so. They go shopping. And where do they go to shop? Walmart or Target or other equivalent price level stores. Where do the goods in these stores come from? China.

So the end result is that we’re are going to take money away from those who could afford American made goods or afford to employ Americans and give it to those who will ship the money to China. Somehow this doesn’t make sense when you are trying to strengthen the economy and employ more American. Sure, maybe a few more people will get jobs at Walmart, but how many more could get jobs (including manufacturing jobs) if we didn’t take the money away from those who had rightfully earned it, that percentage of America that can actually afford American made goods.

But I guess the next thing Obama will say in his incitement of class wars, is that those in the magical top 5% didn’t earn their money, but that it belongs to the masses. Well, if he does say this, we’re almost communists and we should probably elect a new president (though I think we should do this anyway).

Later maybe I discuss how the Big 3 are going to go under unless the Unions get in touch with reality. There is a reason Toyota and Honda are not even close to the mess the Big 3 are in and it’s not just sales numbers. Did you know – no unions at Toyota and Honda. Also, did you know that one of the reasons Ford shipped the Ford Fiesta plant to Mexico because the Union wouldn’t let them build the stream lined production plant. I guess because it wouldn’t employ enough workers. Well, the Unions helped kill the steel industry. Now they’ll help kill the Auto industry. And Obama will push through a bill that helps union bosses pressure workers into unionizing. So the Union will have more industries to kill (Not that I am opposed to the concept of Unions, just the fact that their demands are not realistic in the current globalized economy). Also, read some stuff on the Great Depression and Unions during that time – makes you think.

A Quick What Doesn't Bother Me Blog

The FDA is starting to stop the importation of goods from China (or at least those containing milk) until the companies can prove that they do not contain Melamine. I am all for this. With a global economy we must recognize that we are gets good from all over the world and most are coming from countries with much lower safety standards. It's time we put the burden on those companies importing these inferior goods to ensure they don't harm us.

Here is the article:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081113/D94E4NP02.html

I think the US should require all incoming goods to pay an inspection fee if they come from a country with questionable safety standards to ensure we Americans aren't harmed.

Of course, I also think they should start enforcing international patent law in China, but that is another blog.

Reclaiming Ourselves

Helping your fellow man. Why You Need to Do It and Not the Government.

Below you will find a rambling article. It quickly poured out of me and I wrote it down before it went away. I thought to post my reflections now because I wasn’t sure when I would have the time to go smooth it out. Please excuse types and random thoughts. I'll fix it later.

Perhaps one of the biggest distinction between the Republican and Democrat parties is their view in the role of the government in helping the downtrodden. The Democrats have championed the parent government that cares for all. The Republicans have pushed for a smaller government. This has led to the mistaken impression that Republicans do not care for the poor or the disadvantaged. The reality, however, is that the Republicans care (perhaps more than Democrats) but they see the individual as responsible for helping not the government. Conservatives give more to charities each year than liberals (documented fact – survey after survey with the same result). I wonder at this phenomenon and Liberals are always the one pushing for bigger and bigger government to help everyone. If they think so many people need help, why aren’t they doing it themselves? Instead, Liberals pass the buck to the government. They demand the government fix it. In part, I think, so that they don’t have to worry about and don’t have to feel guilty about not helping the less advantaged. What the real reason is, I can only speculate and as I don’t have a degree in psychology, it wouldn’t be the best use of my time.

Whatever the reason, the Liberal approach is going to lead to some serious problems. The belief in the parent government leads to problems. It leads to a disconnect between those who have achieved and those who have not. It removes role models from the inner cities where they are desperately needed. If the government handles it, the individual feels no need to intervene. The reality, however, is that societal problems must be solved by members of the society. Pushing it on the government just seems to make it worse. Just look at the ever increasing out of wedlock birthrates in this country. The increasing collapse of our schools. The culture of victimhood and despair that thrives in our inner cities. Money will not solve these problems (some of the worst schools in the country spend some of the highest rates per student). A government will not solve these problems. People will. Parents going into schools and demanding a better education for their children, Parents sitting with their kids at night helping them with their homework, teachers who care and stay late – these are the things that will fix our schools. Encouraging safe sex, Empowering Women to be secure in themselves, teaching Boys to be men and giving them role models that respect women – these are the things that will lower the rate of single mothers and kids raised in poverty.

A liberal paternalism has developed where they push through issues because they think they will be better for the poor without actually talking to the poor about what will happen.

A great example of this would be the recent payday lending issue in Ohio. I listened to my friends say a variety of reasons as to why the payday lending rate should be lowered to 28%. Things such as “They should just learn to live within their means. The poor are using these places to buy flat screen TVs and these places take advantage of them.” Or such things as “A crappy credit card has about 28% interest, I don’t know why a pay day lender can’t survive at these rates. The poor people will be better off. Right now they are borrowing from one payday lender to pay another and are getting deeper and deeper into debt.”
I remember one friend who had went to a debate on the issue and came away insulted. One of the men opposing the lowering of the interest rate stated that many in the room wouldn’t understand because their skin wasn’t the right pigment. My friend was insulted that this man would feel that she wouldn’t understand. Now, while I don’t think understanding is linked to pigment color, the man was more right than wrong. The sad fact is that more minorities than whites are poor in Cleveland. These poor rely on payday lending locations. They are an integral part of their lives. A place they can turn to help through a rough patch when no one else will help. The passage of this issue is going to disproportionally affect African-Americans. They are the ones that are going to suffer all so that a few liberals can feel good as their paternalism runs amok.

My friend, however, didn’t understand and part of that stemmed from who she is. She never had to face not being able to qualify for a credit card. She had never had to closely monitor a budget where being a dollar off meant bouncing a check and not making rent. When she was short on cash she just moved back home with her parents and they helped take care of her, periodically bringing her out to nice dinners and helping her lease a new car when her old got ruined in an accident. However, if you are relying on payday lending places, this is not likely the type of family you have. Your parents are likely as poor as you are and you turn to payday lending so that you can make rent.

Now, I am not an expert on payday lenders, but a few things are quite obvious if you pause for a second and remove your holier-than-thou I know better than the poor what they need hat and think. These assertions ignore the basic reality that payday lenders cannot survive at 28% interest. The people they lend to have poor credit and many of them have poor credit for a reason. The default rate is high and 28% interest just won’t cover the pay day lender losses from people who refuse to pay. Quite honestly, I’m not sure if it’ll even cover the over head costs of the store and its workers. This means that payday lenders are going to close. People will lose jobs and people will have no legitimate place to turn when they come up short.

The reality is that without the payday lending places people are now going to bounce checks and pay much more in fees to the bank than they ever paid to the payday lender. And many of the poor are now going to seek out drug dealers or turn to crime to get the money they need when their paycheck just doesn’t stretch as far as it needs to one pay period.

Now I am not going to say that 391% might be too high and that pay day lenders couldn’t survive at a lower rate. What I am going to say, however, is that 28% is too low.

That is not to say that their aren’t some people that are irresponsibly using payday lenders to buy stuff they don’t need or are shifting from one pay day lender to another because they simply aren’t making enough money for their expenditures. However, there are some that are using them for what they were intended and who do need them. And these are the people that will unfairly suffer. At some point we as a society must say that we are willing to let the irresponsible suffer so that those who are trying their best don’t. If you use a pay lender to buy a flat screen tv and can’t pay it back. Too bad. You are an adult. Live with your choices. I am ok with you suffering so that some poor woman with three kids can make rent if she runs short before her next payday. And the reality that is their decision to make, not some right kid from the suburbs who has always had a safety net who will never quite understand true poverty because they have never lived it.

The government is not a parent. If we make it into one, we all become children. At some point we need to cut people off and say BE AN ADULT. Live with the consequence of you choices. If you screw up, too bad. A slippery slope develops when those in power think they know better than the masses. That is the type of philosophy that leads to dictators and death. There is a reason that America has thrived and survived for so long. There is a reason that no matter how bad it gets America can make it through it and come out the end better than the rest of the world. That reason is because in the end we trust the individual more than we trust the government. We empower the individual more than we empower the government. That is why we ALWAYS have more job creation than all of Europe combined. That is why our middle class is shrinking – many of them are moving up!!! Our middle upper to upper class range is growing!! More people are achieving the American dream. Even in the current economic crisis, we are fairing better than the rest of the world. If our government just leaves us alone, we will weather this storm just as we have weathered worst storms in the past (some studies show FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression by 7 years!!). We will bind together and pull ourselves up and reach out to our fellow man and pull them up to.

And this leads me back to the premise of this discussion, helping others. The Republicans trust themselves, charities and those who truly work with those in need to understand the needs of the disadvantaged. We trust these charities to work to help in the best way possible while not turning those it helps into helpless children. We want to help others, we just think it is our individual responsibility to do so and it is not appropriate to pass it on to the government. Because if the government takes over we stop helping. We lose our connection with those who are less fortunate. We become wrongly paternalistic and hurt those we are trying to help.

If we stop helping our fellow man, are we any longer the great human race that God created us to be? Or do we become children playing grownups in a world run by the parent government who dictates to us our every thought and removes from us the self reflection that makes us human? That crushes that innate American spirit that pushes us towards better things?

Do I want to live in a society where my government is my parent and where I have become the child? Do I want to live in a society where a failed government policy could ruin all of our lives? Do I want to live in a society where the government has so much power where we are one bad election away from creating a dictator? Do I want to live in a society where we have destroyed the American dream? Do I want to live in a society where we the let the government take our money and then decide how to spend it as though we have no stake in what we have rightfully earned? I think the answer to all of these questions is NO. And I think if you think about it long enough, you might agree with me.

Final Election Thoughts

As I prepare to work and watch the polls all day, I wonder who will win and who will lose. I would like to say that the electorate in the end will make an informed decision and choose a candidate that will help us out of the current economic crisis, but I fear not. This is because the final loser in this election will be the main stream media.

The media forgot to do their job this election. They forgot that bias comes from not only how they cover things but what they cover. The electorate is going to the polls today thinking that Obama is going to give them a tax cut, which is simply not true. There is no tax cut. There is a tax credit that is reverse related to income so that the more you earn the less you are credited. Now I used to say half of those who qualify don't pay taxes so will essentially will be welfare for the working class, but as that top income under the Obama redistribution plan keeps shrinking from 250,000 to 200,000 to 150,000 to 120,000 as to those who qualify for tax credits, I think that half of those don't pay taxes has grown much higher.

Now the plan is give people who don't pay taxes money they didn't earn (i.e., welfare for the working class) leave a big chunk of the populace the same and then tax the hell out of everyone above 250,000 for families and 200,000 for individuals (including small businesses responsible for half of all new job creation) to cover the crazy spending spree he is proposing. Now his surrogates keep saying that the top part won't pay more that under Reagan. However, that is not true. Not even remotely true. Obama is proposing tax rates around 40% (for federal taxes mind you, these people still have to pay state and local taxes - they will have no more money). Under Reagan the tax rate was 28-29%. 29% is very different from 40%.

The crazy thing is that for all the lies regarding tax policy coming out of the Obama camp, the media has said nothing. They have completely failed to explain to the American people what this means. The American people are going to go to the voting booth with no idea what they are voting for and the economic implications of this kind of tax structure.

And of course there is Obama's environmental proposals. Proposals he himself admits will bankrupt to coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket. How many people heard that little bit of information from their media outlet? I'm going to go with very few. As we go into a recession, Obama is proposing an environmental policy that is going to bankrupt an entire industry and cause everyone's pocketbooks to hurt due to astronomically higher energy prices. This is going to cripple the economy and American's at home and that welfare for the working class isn't going to help. Yet does the media discuss this?

Obama's healthcare plan requires businesses to pay the full cost of healthcare. Many companies now pay a portion (usually 75% of the plan) and workers pay the rest. This way they can afford to hire another worker and provide affordable coverage. Now, under Obama's plan businesses are going to need to cut workers to pay provide full coverage. This is going to mean less jobs for Americans as we head into a recession. Yet the media doesn't discuss this.

Instead, we have Obama supporters shouting hope and change. Obama is apparently going to pay fr their gas and mortgage and everything else. He is just going to fix everything. Never mind that his policies are likely to cripple our economy. This little facts don't seem to sway the media.

Of course, there is Obama's past. A past that the media simply doesn't discuss. There is Reverend Wright (the hate-filled pastor that spews racism and divisiveness), Rezco (the corrupt real estate guy that got Obama his home), Odinga ( the opposition party candidate in Kenya that caused riots when he lost that Obama campaigned with and helped Odinga structure his campaign message), Ayers (the domestic terrorist that bombs the pentagon), and Khalidi (vocal Israel hater and former higher up of the PLO - terrorist group out of Palestine). I'm sure there are many more i haven't heard of. Yet does the media discuss this? No, they didn't.

So now we are about to elect a president whose history we have no clue on and whose policies we don't know about. How dumb can we be?

Coal - the employer of the unskilled middleclass (and I suppose some skilled as well)

A video has surfaced. In it Obama says his policies will bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket. I don't know about you, but this seems like a really bad idea when we are heading into a recession. Right up there with Hoover's decisions to increase taxes on businesses and impose protectionist trade tariffs that launched an international trade war and helped force us into a Great Depression. Wait, doesn't Obama want to increase taxes on businesses and put in protectionist trade measures? Huh. This isn't looking good for the US economy.

I mean I am no Ph.D. in economics, but I am also not an idiot (As a side note I said years ago that the housing market was in a bubble, before even the Ph.D.'s agreed, so maybe I am smarter than Ph.D.... or maybe not, just saying). Call me crazy, but it just seems like a really bad idea to put in place policies that will bankrupt an industry that provides jobs for a whole lot of middleclass Americans (not including the impact the destruction of the coal industry would have on industries like railroads that derive a lot of business and profit from transporting coal) and cause energy prices to sky rocket. This would seem to hurt the middleclass. And I just don't think Obama's welfare for the working tax policy will compensate for the increased energy prices and higher unemployment.

Here is a link to a website that has tons of stuff on the video:
http://www.baltimorereporter.com/index.php?cat=38

here are some people's responses to Obama's comment:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Ohio-Coal-Association-Says-Obama/story.aspx?guid=%7BDFD1EBEB-73EC-4661-B8BA-40D8EBD7D93D%7D

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/tag/obama/

and CNN mentions it in a highly slanted way that ignores the fact that the newspaper with this video never released a transcript and never mentioned it contents to anyone, but they had the video in January so apparently it is old news even though no one had ever heard it (slant much??)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/02/palin-knocks-obama-over-months-old-coal-comments/

Let's see if Pennsylvania officials actually care about their citizens. Will they say "Folks, I changed my mind. Don't vote for Obama." Or will they keep drinking the koolaid.

PS - Some democrats response has been but McCain supports cap and trade, too (this response doesn't work for a toddler, I'm not quite sure why they think it'll work as an adult). However, the plans are VERY VERY VERY different and McCain's plan is not going to bankrupt coal or drive up energy costs. His is more economy sensitive. Go research and compare. And, after all, he is a Republican. You know the green we speak of is money not trees (though we do love the environment, just a little less than Obama apparently).

Campaign Financing Fraud

read this article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-obama-campaigns-credit-card-crack-up/

The campaign fraud in the Obama campaign is astonishing yet the news circuit isn't picking it up. Make sure everyone you know knows that Obama is essentially assisting his donors in breaking campaign finance law. Do you want a president that will go to such lengths to win?

New Articles from the Week And What I have Learned

Everyone hord your money and food supplies, it looks like Obam might be elected. The lessons I have learned from this election:
1. You can buy an election (particularly if you lie and say you are going to take public financing and then back out).
2. The media will blindly follow the person that says the prettiest things.
3. Once a sensation gets going its hard to throw it off the tracks, even if it should be.
4. Facts have apparently now become opinions and Republican stating a fact is insulting the person who "disagrees" with him (i.e., has the facts wrong).
5. Free speech has left the country unless you are praising the One.
6. The word change apparently makes people stop listening to the rest of the message,
7. We as a nation have learned nothing from history (whose ready for Great Depression 2.O(bama)?).

Articles from the week:

Obama saying he wouldn't mind bankrupting the coal industry:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

how Obama's economic policy is scarily similar to that which launched us into the great depression:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

media bias:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/10/28/abc-cbs-morning-shows-skip-obama-redistribution-wealth-tape

do not challenge the one:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-barbara-west-joe-biden-102808,0,5063691,print.story

like many of the policies being endorced by the democrats today, the war on poverty did not work the first time (why are they recycling bad ideas - oh, right because the American people aren't taught anything anymore).
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_war_on_poverty.html

Obama - redistributing your money one court justice at a time:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

the media - the PR arm of the Obama campaign:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas

investors fear the one:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas

I am Apparently Selfish For Wanting to Control What I Earned

here is a great post I saw in response to an article about Obama's new assertion that the "wealthy" are selfish for not wanting to pay more taxes to Lord Obama to distribute as he wants.


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had t o be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
Her father responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Just Amazing

If you read one thing all election season, read this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/a-game-changer-by-obama-himself/

Inalienable Rights

Our entire system of government is based on the idea that we have certain inalienable rights. These rights are inherent to the individual and they DO NOT come from the government. Instead, our constitution is set up to protect us from the government's suppression of our rights. Key to the entire American philosophy is the idea is that we inherently have rights and they government does not give them to us, but instead we give the government authority.

Obama seems to disagree. Not only does he advocate positive rights (i.e., rights that come from the government), he seems to have no problems curtailing our inherent rights. This is very dangerous thinking, my friends. It gives the government too much power over the citizen.

To Obama philosophy on our inalienable rights:
"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." Barack Obama, 2008 Primary.

I would also recommend you look at my past posts regarding Obama's suppression of free speech. You can now add the shutout of a news channel that dared to ask a question and the attacks on Joe the Plumber because he also tried to ask a question.

And now surfacing are a whole bunch of Obama quotes regarding an activist court that would create positive rights. This is a scary concept. It means that power no longer comes from the people, but the power comes from the government, vaguely reminicent of a Divine Right Monarchy,

But don't take my word for it:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_ideas_for_a_radical_court_135633.htm

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

But remember, don't ask Obama about it because he will attack you and ruin your life. Just ask Joe the Plumber or the newscaster or Florida (and apparently Pennsylvania as well).

oh, and a side note, more Obama terrorist connections (this time to Khalidi a former leader of the PLO):
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY

Why Obama Cannot Be President

this says it all:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=

Campaign Financing

So I may be violating copyright laws again (If the author has problems, please tell me and I'll take it down. I don't know where this story came from. I got it in an e-mail so I can't track down permission):
October 02, 2008
Are Foreign Donations Powering the Obama Campaign?
Rick Moran
Just how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a "criminal investigation" and would impact the coming election.The anonymous investigator (who won't reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that "I can't get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it."The American Spectator's Washington Prowler writes:
The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign's fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. "Without formal approval, I can't get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking." And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system."The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?" says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. "There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.
Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign's website - a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East - not surprising given Obama's connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light. Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans. There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn't even taking into account Obama's strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign. And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won't do a damn thing about it until after the election.

So I got this in an e-mail

Below is a letter I got in an e-mail. Hopefully no one sues me for copyright infringement.

To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008 , you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right ... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today .... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America ..
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adol f Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future. ama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you. Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

When did negative become positive?

i happen to love to read the comments to articles. You know, to gage the general populace and see how they are feeling. And I have noticed a trend. The left is getting more vicious in their attacks (the left as in posts that take up the lefts argument). They launch into bitter and vitrolic attacks on Palin and McCain while holding up Obama as the second coming. Now this is not to say that the right doesn't get mean. It does, but the comments seem to be more reserved and more targeted at what Obama said or what his policy means. It is the left after all wearing shirts that say "Palin is a c***." It is Obama that tinges his speeches on "hope" with negative undertones that incite panic in the populace (just read the speeches, not hear him say them and you will see what I mean). It was Obama that told his supporters to get in people's faces. It is Obama's side that tries to inject racism to the point that I have heard people clarify their support for McCain with the statement: "I'm not racist, I just don't like Obama's policies and I've always voted Republican." You should not have to clarify your vote. You should not have KKK carved into your car because you support McCain.

The left just rips on Palin. Which, I have got to say, is getting old. She is not stupid. She just spent the last two years running Alaska and highest approval of any governor in the U.S. She took on corruption in oil and won. These are accomplishments and aren't ones Obama is even close to claiming. He spent his two years in Senate running for President and doesn't even known what committees he is on. At least Palin does her job.

And Biden, my God, that man can't stop screwing up to save his life. Luckily, the media likes Obama so less of his screw ups make it into American's homes (which is why everyone should periodically stop by drudgereport.com or pajamasmedia.com). So far he doesn't know how to count, doesn't know the constitution, doesn't know that Lebanon and Syria are two different countries, thinks Obama didn't say he would sit down with the leader of Iran. And don't forget today's announcement that Obama would be tested, that no one would like what Obama chooses to do, but it would be OK because Biden would be there (because his track record on foreign policy decisions has been so awesome up until now - but wait, he doesn't admit the surge is working).

On a side note, since Obama didn't even know that Russia has veto power on the UN security counsel, I am not thrilled with Obama as a potential leader of the free world.

Of course, why I fear an Obama presidency is more basic. I believe strong businesses are essential for growing the economy and I believe it is inherently unfair for the government to give 40% of Americans checks for money they did not earn, while taking that money away from businesses who could employ people if they only had the money to do so. I also fear his assault on voting rights and freedom of speech. And they are assaults.

On freedom of speech: He threatens channels that he will get advertisers to back out if they run certain anto-Obama commercials, he organizes "truth squads" that only target anti-Obama propaganda, he starts lawsuits for "slander" against individuals who air anti-Obama commercials, he favors legislation that will allow Congress to promote a McCarthy era attack on conservative radio, and of course he believes that state and local governments have a right to restrict our rights. I have problems with this. Freedom of speech is inherent to a functioning democracy and even the smallest efforts to suppress an opponents speech is scary to me.

On voting: He also pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into ACORN, an entity whose policies promote voter fraud (and it is voter fraud - there is already at least one incident in Ohio during early voting of actual voter fraud), he trains ACORN members (and he did train them, he had to change his fight the smears web-site after someone found documented proof - makes you wonder about other lies or misleading statements he has made but not meet caught at yet), and, honestly, if ACORN only targets historically democratic neighborhoods for their get out the vote drives but ignore republican areas - isn't that voter dilution?. Obama (and all democrats) also sponsor a bill that would help to take away the right to private vote for union formation, leaving workers vulnerable to union boss pressure that will try to strongarm them into choosing unions. Apparently, Obama is only for voting when the voting favors the outcome he wants.

Now you will notice that I have targeted my criticisms on Obama on his issues, not through derogatory name calling. That is how it should be done.

As a side note, discussing past affiliations (affiliations that a candidate misled the American people about) is not some grossly inappropriate tactic. It is simply telling Americans what the media won't. When stuff is made up, that just crosses the line to be like almost every ad that Obama has run.

The Obama Tax Delusion

Obama’s Tax policy is not a tax cut. There is no reduction in the percentage that people have to pay to the government. What he has proposed is a complicated system of tax credits. Some of these tax credits are actually reverse related to your income, so the more you earn, the less you qualify for in terms of credit. (In case you think, Oh Obama said he would make taxes easier - he is getting to do it by granting the government access to all your private financial information).

Now the numbers. Obama’s tax credit plan only targets 80% of Americans, not 95% (this 95% number seems to have just appeared on the campaign trail one day). 38% of Americans already don’t pay any Federal taxes, but they are eligible for Obama’s tax credit. This means half of those that qualify for Obama’s “tax cut” are actually going checks from the government for doing nothing.

Let me illustrate. Let’s take Bob. Bob works, but his income isn’t that high. He sits in the bottom 40% income bracket. Bob pays nothing, zero to the federal government in taxes. He represents half of those targeted by Obama’s tax plan. He qualifies for certain tax credits totaling, let’s say $2,000.00. Now Bob pays nothing to the federal government, but come tax return time the government is going to hand him a check for $2,000.00, apparently just for being Bob.

Now, let’s take Sue. Sue pays $6,000 in federal taxes per year. Because she earns more, and so actually pays taxes, she is eligible for less money back from the government than Bob who pays nothing. So if Sue was eligible for the same set of tax credits, she would get less money credited to her. So under the Obama plan she’s eligible for let’s say $1,500.00 back. The end result for Sue is that she pays $4,500.00 to the government. After all, the government needs some of her middle class money so it can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently because he’s Bob.

Now let’s take Joe the plumber. He wants to start a business, but that business will sit in the 20% bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on so he can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently for being Bob. So now Joe can’t afford to start his business. This means that Joe can’t hire and employ people. This means that if Bob loses his job, he isn’t going to be able to find another one as business can’t grow anymore. Well, at least Bob got a check from the government for $2,000.00. That’ll help when he can’t find a job.

The end result: Obama’s plan essentially expands the welfare rolls to 40% of the population (most of whom have jobs) on the backs of small businesses and the middle class. Good job, Obama you’ve made us Obamunists.

Next article, the scary similarities between Obama's economic policy and the economic policy's that launched us into the great depression. Oh, and in case you are like the democrats in the House and hadn't heard (or read an unbiased account of the Great Depression), The New Deal was not successful and actually caused the Depression to drag on for 10 years and caused a depression within a depression.

So we do not forget why we have this economic crisis

Bloomberg explains it all so well:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wallison&sid=a6M1QA55PB9Y

Some excerpts:
"There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks."

"Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.
Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor. "

Getting to the heart of who Obama is

So we really know less about Obama than Palin. here is some food for thought:

Obama's hidden past:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/hiding_the_ball.html

An article by a guy for Obama's truth squads (squadsa targeting anti-Obama ads that they can classify as misleading, but not anti-McCain ads which of late have been misleading and filled with outright lies): http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_election_092808_truthsquad.bec69e89.html?npc

The Missourri Governor criticising the truth squad for misuse of public officials:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

Obama's tax policy (or Obamunism):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_tonic.html

Obama and ACORN:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html

Articles to Read

No one seems to understand the credit crisis and how we got here. I like to say we got here because of misregulation. It is not the fault of deregulation because Fannie and Freddie and their exceedingly large part of this crisis and the push for expanding loans for lower-income people are all regulatory measures, the opposite of deregulation. The problem was that with these regulations other regulation was needed to control Fannie and Freddie and no matter ho hard McCain tried for it, Barney Frank and his allies blocked it. Here is some links - learn for yourself:

McCain in the congressional record discussing the need to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

The Dem's First response? That they should all just leave
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aVPBaUbYV_qQ

Congress tries to fix what it broke:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102

What the Democrats did to get us here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Why Frank (Democratic chair of the House Finance Committee) is to blame:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Whe the problem is not deregulation:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0928edit1sep28,0,4840444.story

And why Obama's tax "cut" is really just wealth redistribution (i.e., communism) and, of course, includes policies that will decrease government revenue:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_tonic.html

Oh, and the new york times likes to lie about John McCain (no wonder the left is clueless):
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376&rating=5
Oh, and that Obama hides his past (not related, but still I am a republican):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/hiding_the_ball.html

I don't understand why Obama is more equipped to handle the economy

The media keeps saying and that masses are starting to believe that Obama is more equiped to handle the economy. The question I have is why?

In 2006 McCain warned that something was hinky with Fannie Mae. Obama chose the shady people from Fannie Mae to help on his campaign.

People keep calling McCain the great deregulator and blaming him and deregulation for the current mess. However, how we got here has less to do with deregulation and everything to do with the Democrat push to get poor people into homes they couldn't afford.

The subprime mortgage crisis (the crisis that has led to the giant financial crisis) started with the idea that banks were being discriminatory in their lending practices because minorities were getting less mortgages (this actually had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with sound financial principals). Now the sad reality is that in society, minorities represent a disproportionately high percentage of the poor and unemployed in America. When banks led money for mortgages traditionally they did not lend it to people who were risky investments (i.e., the poor and unemployed). Accordingly, sound business practices began to look like discrimination. A greater push began to develop to address this "discrimination." The result was a relaxing of the standards required to get a loan.

As a sidenote I am NOT somehow blaming minorities who received loans as the source of the problem. The problem developed with a relaxing of standards and the general society response to take out loans that they should not have - loans higher than they could technically afford, loans their credit history made obvious they should not have. this is the fault of everyday citizens who bought more house than they should have. This is the fault of banks who gave out these loans. This is the fault of Wallstreet traders who treated these mortgage backed securities as low risk when they weren't. There is a lot of fault to go around here, including Congress who killed the bill McCain sponsored targeting at reigning in Fannie Mae.

Coupled with this push for increased access to mortgages and a relaxing of the standards was also the misbelief that somehow the massive raise in housing prices was sustainable (which makes about as much sense as the decoupling theory that helped push up the value of the euro - but that is a whole other story). Accordingly, mortgages became viewed as less risky because even if the purchasers defaulted on their mortgage, the bank could simply sell the home and get a profit or at least break even.

So now there are two forces at work: (1) Democrat initiative to end "discriminatory" lending practices which led to a push in subprime mortgages (i.e., give people who shouldn't have homes, home) and (2) a mistaken belief that a bubble in the housing market was sustainable. Banks were then encouraged to hand out mortgages like free samples at the grocery store under the mistaken belief that nothing could go wrong.

So we have problems. And lets add a little accounting fraud into the mix and financial meltdown here we come.

Now again, in 2006 McCain warned that something needed to be done about Fannie and no one listened. If Congress (controlled by Dems, mind you) had listened this crisis could have been averted. But right now we have a do nothing dem run congress and so nothing happened and McCain's bill got killed in committee. The reality is McCain may push for deregulation sometimes but where it counts he is all about accountability and government oversight. That is really what a market needs to operate. It needs to be let run free so it grows, but needs to be reigned in when it starts to go haywire so as maintain stability. It does not need increases in capital gains tax so as to decrease investment (Hint to Obama increasing capital gains taxes historically has led to a decrease in government revenue, decreasing it has done just the opposite - Obama you do not understand the economy).

Tomorrow.... How Obama's tax policy is essentually communism and will cripple the economy even more and perhaps a little on trade (and how if you stopped shopping at Walmart jobs wouldn't be forced overseas).

To Review Where the Potential Pres Stand

I would just like to note that McCain has been right on the big issues and Obama hasn't.

Here's the scorecard.

Surge (even when unpopular): McCain

Warning about Fannie and Freddie and the need to regulate them in 2006: McCain

Georgia: McCain

I guess Obama had Iraq? When he wasn't at the federal level and couldn't vote for it? And we had UN approval to proceed? And it stemmed from a general anti-ware sentiment and not any actual knowledge?


OK so some general

Obama hammer McCain on lobbyists? By the way, they are ex-lobbyists. And I would rathr have a few ex-lobbyists than who Obama originally wanted on his side (Rezco, Wright).

McCain hammered Obama on sex-ed for kindergarteners. Oh, wait. That ended up being true. The bill Obama sponsored actually did not call for sex-ed for grade K and not just education on sexual predators (that was a separate part of the bill).

Obama hammers Palin on inexperience. Pot meet kettle.

Biden wants me to be "patriotic" and pay more taxes. Stick it Biden. I want my money to do with what I think is best for the country. I really don't trust you with my money.

Obama lowering 80% of the populations taxes? 40% don't pay taxes. I am not quite sure how that math works. Oh, wait. I forgot his tax scheme is actually a wealth redistribution plan (think communism). So he will heavily tax businesses and capital gains stiffling business development (you know those things that employ people) so poor people can afford HD cable tv with all the channels, new cars, blackberries, designer clothes 42 inch plasma screen tvs, McMansions, you get the picture (you know the things I can't afford yet and am working hard to own someday). Well, that is until all the businesses go under and we collapse in on ourselves and no one can afford to own anything.

Why You Should Blame the Democrats and Vote Republican

So I am getting a little sick of people blaming the republicans for everything and saying we must vote for Obama to solve our problems. But here are some hard truths to think about.

President Bush and most of the Republicans have been advocating drilling for years, but the Democrats have been dead set against. Oil prices were on the rise and will likely be on the the rise again soon, but still the Democrats (who control both houses) are a no go on drilling. So gas prices are high, which is the Dems fault. If they had allowed drilling before, we would not be facing this crisis. If they had allowed us to build refineries and drill away from the golf coast, we wouldn't be in constant fear of a hurricane shooting up gas prices.

Because of the high gas prices, everything else is going up in price, food, products, anything that is shipped, and families are struggling. Obama talks about the struggling family, but his policies of no drill and more "green" production will only increase their hurt as it will increase prices.

Of course, his excessive pro-union stance and high tax rates will also drive companies and jobs abroad to China, but, hey, according to Obama, jobs going to China is NAFTA's fault. Though, last time I checked China was not part of North America so not part of NAFTA, but hey, there's Dems. geography for you.

So Obama's policies = higher prices and less jobs. Now he can say from now until forever that the opposite is true, but just saying something doesn't make it true, it just means you've said it a lot.

Terrorism is always a fear for us here in America. Guess how terrorism is partly funded? Oil proceeds. That's right, when you fill your tank, you may be sending money straight to terrorists who will try to use your own money to blow you up. But hey, why worry about it now? They haven't attacked us since 2001, which obviously had nothing to do with Republican policies.

Obama's followers keep harping on Palin's lack of experience, but last time I checked she was running in the VP spot and Obama's experience is not much greater than hers. Now many Obama supporters say he can just get good advisors, which would also work for Palin, yes? And Palin doesn't have a history of associating with racists, domestic terrorists, and real estate misdeeders, so she is ahead on this avenue. Now, Obama was against the Iraq war, true, but he was in Illinois state senate when the position cost him nothing and then he was opposed to the surge, which worked, and which McCain said would work. And we have Georgia, which McCain almost predicted years ago with his stated distrust of Putin anf Obama that wanted to sit back and just wait to see what happened (In other words, good by Georgia). Yeah, Obama is somehow so much better on foreign policy than McCain, because after all he toured Europe with reporters.

Of course, there is the issue of corruption in politics and breaking up the current system. Now on one side is Obama who was part and parcel of the Mayor Daley corruption world of Chicago and Biden who is true old school politician and all that entails. Then we have McCain, who has fought against corruption for years and Palin who made a name for herself in Alaska taking on big oil and the corrupt politicians in her own party. Which side do you think is more likely to take on the Washington elite and win? My vote is with Sarah Baracuda.

Palin is also the only one with executive experiences. True, it is only 2 years, but it is more than anyone else out there. Now Obama tries to claim his campaign has prepared him (well, since there is nothing else to his credit, I supposed that is what he must fall back on). This is the same campaign who threatened media outlets with massive loss of advertising if they ran the add linking Obama to Ayers (the unrepetent domestic terrorist that Obama launched his campagin from), the same campaign that tried to link China with NAFTA, the same campaign that called mid-westerners bitter signal issue voters. So what we have is the lowest of the low in political tricks, of misleading the American people, and preventing freedom of speech. Great attributes for the main of "change." Now, true, Obama's campaign has been successful. He did, after all, win with no experience to his name and just a pretty little speech to show he is ready to run the country. You know, Hitler was popular, too, but I sure wouldn't want him running any country I live it.

Now, I could write an entire book on the downfalls of the socialist agenda he is pushing and a universal, government run, health care system, but I will just ask this - How good did the government do at say Katrina or managing social security and any of the other of its myriad of overbroad government programs it tries to run? Also, just do a quick search for available doctors in Canada or dialysis in Great Britain if you are over 55, or cancer treatmentsm or expensive drug therapy in Europe and see the results you get. See what is not said about the rest of the worlds attempts at universal healthcare. Oh, and check out their tax rates and unemployment rates and think if that is the country you want to live in. And before you say we are already there the unemployment rate for July was 5.7% and last quarter saw growth and the dolloar is on the rise, no matter what the media and Obama is trying to scare you into thinking.

Oh, and one more thing. The top ten poorest cities are all democratic strong holds and many were thay way long before they became the poorest cities. Do we really want them controlling th entire country? (See below for an articles re: the top ten poorest cities)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html?iref=newssearch

Just put down the Obama kool-aid and think. Do you really know what is in that glass? Is it something sweet? Or poison?

I am glad I am not a democratic feminist right now.

So I went down to Dayton to see McCain announce his VP. When he announced Palin, I realized this could be a good pick. I didn't know much about her yet, just that she had a lot of kids, her husband was pretty darn attractive for an older guy, and she was the governor of Alaska. However, this blog isn't about whether Sarah Palin is a good pick. I think she is (it is VP after all, not President, so the experience requirement isn't quite as high, and she runs a state successfully, all Obama has done is run a campaign (after he won his senatorship because of a scandal)). What this is about is what I learned about democrats.

From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?

And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?

I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.

Christianity Never Allowed Polygamy

So I have a passion for religions. I like to investigate their secular history and their actual teachings and the history behind the words in their religious books.
I also am a feminist and so I am interested in how women are treated and their response to their religion.
I have noticed a common theme amongst Muslim feminists that I simply must critique and correct. I continually read amongst Muslin feminists that Christianity somehow is pro-polygamy, that is somehow fine by scripture. This is simply not true. Christianity has never allowed polygamy and from the very first church leaders said polygamy was against the bible. I just think somewhere there should be a website that corrects this misconception. Listen, if you want to argue that your religion is for women's equality, fine go ahead, but don't do it by lying about mine.
For instance,
Mark 10:11 - 12: "He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.""
This is pretty clear to me - marrying another woman is adultery. Now this is addressing adultery and when it does and does not occur, but by implication if a guy cannot marry a new woman without committing adultery against his first wife, then surely cannot marry a second wife while still married to the first one. (I am not commenting on appropriate grounds of divorce, because I am not 100% sure whether this condemns all divorce or if there are still grounds since we are "hard of heart")
Jesus in Mark also discusses the whole two become one thing. You know, when man and woman married Not 3 become 1 or 4 become 1, but 2 become 1. Pretty implicit in this is the fact that marriage is only between two people.

The earliest Christian leaders also condemned polygamy:
"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife c. 207)

At no time in all of Christian history was the Christian faith ever in favor of polygamy (there may have been crazy sects out there that did as there are crazy sects that do it today, but never in any accepted Christian form and never permitted under the teachings of Christ).

The honest fact is that Christ treated women equally. Any inequality in the Christian church does not stem from the words of Christ, but instead later followers of his, such as Paul. This is why I say that inneracy in terms of the new testament makes no sense. It seems quite obvious to me that the biases of Paul should not suppress the teachings of Christ which is what happens under the inneracy concept.

Manufacuring Industry is Important (Stop killing it Unions!!)

So I have always said that it is bad for the American economy to shift away from manufacturing towards a full service industry. The idea that that was a good thing just seemed completely silly to me. The service industry is just too responsive to economic downturns and also creates huge trade deficits with foreign countries which weakens the dollar. Wow, that idea is being proven true in the current weakened economy and surprise, surprise, someone of apparent importance finally agrees with me:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/environment?type=environmentNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq&src=blogBurst_environmentNews&bbPostId=Cz854tWRKKaRnCzAVm294vh37CBA9RUIa32XuWB1BVBGtpBYWp&bbParentWidgetId=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq

So anyway, be a good American and buy American. You can only help yourself.

Also, unions, you need to learn to work within the confines of the modern economy. You have to allow companies to use modern advances that minimize the required work force or you will force what little manufacturing we have right out of the country (hint, look at the collapse of the steel industry or the current move of Ford to build their new plant in Mexico because they couldn't get the Union to agree to the use of robotic arms). You have to recognize you can't retire after 30 years to full benefits unless you want to put your fellow workers out of work. You have to be realistic or you will just hurt yourselves.

Coach Purses Are All Made in China

So I sent an email to Coach asking if any of their purses were not made in China. Personally, I will not buy an expensive name brand product made in China. What's the sense in that? Since the factory is already there, if you buy a Made in China knock-off, it is likely the real thing. And just think of the mark up and the huge profit Coach is walking away with? Anyway, I wanted a Coach purse not made in china (call me picky).
Here is the response e-mail from Coach:

"Thank you for contacting COACH.
COACH's philosophy behind worldwide manufacturing speaks to the very foundation of our success as a committed American brand. COACH has grown to become one of the world's most respected brands and is committed to providing our consumers with a fine quality product. We have chosen to partner with overseas manufacturing, including China. This diversified manufacturing skill base has enabled us to maintain the exceptional value for which COACH is known.
We hope you will continue to purchase COACH in the future.
Sincerely,
Naomi
COACH Online Consumer Service"

I like the claim that making it in china is somehow adding value to the Coach purse line.
Lesson for everyone: Don't be stupid and Don't buy Coach.

Where are the Protestors

Where Are the Protests? We as a society protest injustices all the time, but we no nothing about the Texas courts decision towards the children of the FLDS?

The children of the FLDS are being sent back home to their compound in Texas. They’re being sent back home into a closed off society that’s core tenants dictate the subjugation and physical and mental abuse of its members. They are being sent back into a cult where they are brainwashed from birth that it is OK for a creepy old man with 10 other wives to rape little girls continually for the rest of their lives, and not is it only OK, but it is their only way to heaven.
Now there are a whole bunch of arguments about the immediacy of danger to these children, etc., that the courts in Texas used to make this decision under, which concentrated on the rights of the parents.

We somehow view this as an issue solely of the rights of the parents. How could we take away these parents children? (These parents that wouldn’t admit which kids were theirs). These parents that live in a society pretty much based on breaking the law (last time I checked, polygamy and child rape were still crimes). Somehow these parents’ rights reign paramount.
But what of the rights of the child? We as a society would not leave a little girl with her mother and father after we knew the father had abused her older sister, but this is what we seem to be doing with the FLDS children. There is not simply one mother and one father. There is a father and many mothers. The mothers have very little control over the futures’ of their children. Instead, the father’s will dictates the course for his children. When he decides to marry wife A’s little girl off, this reflects on the safety of wife B’s little girl. We seem to forget this. This is not a normal family structure on one father and one mother. This is a society based on the subjugation and dehumanization of its female populous. And let us not forget the underlying tenant of corrupted control. The man controls his household and his many wives and the religious leader in this community holds ultimate sway to marry of little girls and kick out little boys so he has more little girls to go around for his fellow old men to “marry” and rape. This is not a normal family structure, unless you are thinking of family in terms of a mafia family, where the don reigns supreme to abuse his underlings as he sees fit (Of course, even the mafia seemed to have some honor code that is completely lacking from the FLDS).

We know girls are married off at ridiculously young ages. To claim otherwise is to just completely break with reality. We have women who have fled this community and have spoken of their ordeals, yet we ignore them. We have a religious leader in jail for assisting of the rape of a 14 year old girl, and facing future prosecution on the same matter, but still we ignore the true threats that these children face every day.

And it is not just the known physical threat that every girls faces that she will be married off as a child to some older man who will be able to rape her according to his whim. There is also the constant emotional and mental threat that is quite imminent and harmful. These children are taught from birth that women are chattel and that it is only through these “spiritual marriages” that they can reach heaven. They are taught that it is only through subjugation and acceptance of abuse that God will somehow accept them into heaven. The boys are taught to abuse. They are pulled into the hold of the corrupted power that men wield over their “wives.” They are taught that the objectification and degradation of women is necessary for them to attain heaven.
Let us be honest with ourselves. Setting aside the relativist view that we are taught in modern society that all cultures have value and should be treated with respect, the type of system built into the FLDS teachings thrives on inequity and corruption. It is a society that mut kick boys out so men can have enough wives. It is a society where men must shut off any desire for a marriage based on equality and respect and partnership, for such a thing cannot be had in a polygamous marriage. Polygamy inherently puts women at a disadvantage and in an inferior position of power, particularly in a society that so curtails a woman’s rights to control her life. To claim otherwise, is to simply lie to yourself.

But perhaps that is what we as a society are doing in regards to the FLDS community. If we were to pass judgment on them, would we have to pass judgment on other religions? What kind of slippery slope would we find ourselves on?

Let us simply step back into reality and look at the facts. This is not a religion, it is a cult. It maintains its power by continual brainwashing and seclusion from outside society. It maintains itself by lying to authorities and intentionally trying to hide what they are doing from outsiders. They know society views their actions as wrong. I think some part of themselves probably tells them that what they do is wrong. But the men ignore it, getting drunk off the corrupted power they wield over the women in their lives.

I have discussed this topic with many people and I continually hear similar responses. “But there really isn’t proof that all these girls would be married off under age.” There is ample evidence of underage marriages. After all, isn’t that why Warren Jeff’s is in jail? “Our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion.” Any individual who studies constitutional law will tell there are limits to freedom of religion. The breaking of laws designed to protect the innocence and safety of children clearly falls into the realm of what is not protected. “As long as it involves two consenting adults, it is completely fine, and we don’t know for sure that they really are married off young.” These types of responses allow us to ignore reality and allow us to cloak our inaction in terms of tried and true phrases that really do not apply in this instance. To consent to something requires choice. When an individual is brainwashed from birth that they must marry into these polygamous marriages, their ability to choose has been removed. Instead, they are coerced through continual mental abuse that there really is no other option. This is not choice, this is learned slavery. And again, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that underaged marriages occur. “Young girls get pregnant all the time, how are these girls so different?” Well, for one, we as a society tend to view any underage pregnancy is bad and there are many groups out that make concerted efforts to prevent it. And most of these under aged pregnancies usually involve some choice by the under aged girl (Now, whether there was coercion involved is an entirely other matter). So when you step back and look back at the reality of it, there really is no reason we as a society shouldn’t be working to actively break up these FLDS groups and integrate its children into society.

But still we as a society do nothing. Where is the uproar? Where are the women’s groups that protest the right to abortion on the grounds of personal autonomy? Do the rights of these little girls not matter to them? Do these little girls’ freedom to choose what to do with their own body’s not matter? Why are they not in the streets protesting? Why are they not working to get civil rights lawyers to defend these children?

Where are the religious groups that so strenuously protest abortion or gay marriage or any other action they view as bad for the moral fabric of society? Isn’t the systematic abuse and brainwashing of women and children bad for society? I would think so. For those of the Christian bent, Christ remarked that it a sin to even lust after another man’s woman. Some religious scholars have hypothesized, and I tend to agree, that the point of this admonishment rests on the objectification of the women involved that results from this lust. Where is the What Would Jesus Do movement? I am pretty sure he wouldn’t be saying, yeah its cool to rape little girls and brainwash them into believing that the fate of their immortal souls rests on a polygamous marriage (especially as his teachings tend to run counter to polygamy, what with the whole two become one thing, not eight become one). Instead, Jesus would be advocating to protect the little children.

And what about the Church of the Latter Day Saints? Why are the Mormon’s not stepping forward to protest? I know they disavow any connection to the FLDS, but they share a common history. The modern Mormon church may not practice polygamy, but they did in the past and what we see in the FLDS is the corruptive nature of that practice. How do they not feel some responsibility for these children? Do they somehow fear being tied in society’s eyes to FLDS if they speak up? Honestly, I would disconnect you more if you actively worked to remove the children from any FLDS member and worked to end the FLDS all together. Instead, the FLDS sits out there like a skeleton in the LDS closet that’s door has been open for the world to see.

Where are the political leaders? The men and women that we have instilled with the authority to oversee the protection of the citizenry? I know we as a society have become pretty jaded about politicians, but shouldn’t we require that our politicians at least make a token effort to protect children? Where is Obama with his pretty speeches on change? Why isn’t he talking of this injustice that needs to be changed? Where is Hillary with history of women’s rights and having a village raise the child? Are we just going to ignore these children? Where is McCain and his speeches on all of us being the children of God? Are these children somehow not the children of God? Do they fear rocking the boat? How can we ever trust a politician to lead this country if he or she cannot even speak out against such an obvious and horrible wrong?
And where are you? Why aren’t you educating yourself on what happens in these FLDS compounds and cities and why aren’t you telling your friends that it just wrong to idly sit by and do nothing, that instead, we as a society should just say that it wrong.