Obama Will Give Amnesty And You Will Pay For It
Oct 29, 2008 Immigration, Political, Second Amendment
Not to long ago nearly the entire Congress, John McCain included, tried to ram an amnesty package down our throats. That package would have given million of illegals a path to citizenship by largely ignoring the fact that they committed a crime to get here. The country went nuts and flooded the switchboards at the Capitol and the legislation went down in defeat.
More than 80% of this country opposed the idea of allowing illegals a pathway to citizenship that amounted to nothing more than amnesty. Now, a large portion of that opposition is prepared to elect a man who has stated that he wants to give the illegals a pathway to citizenship. Barack Obama is in favor of allowing millions of people to become citizens and thus gaining the right to vote. Obama will put politics ahead of country and allow millions of Democratic supporters to infiltrate our voter rolls and change the dynamics of politics for generations to come.
Under Barack Obama these new “citizens” will turn Texas into a deep blue state and it will take many of the other southern states with it. Traditional Republican strongholds will be infiltrated by millions of people eager to keep the party that gives away taxpayer money in power. This will spell disaster for the Republican party but more importantly, it will spell disaster for our country. Millions of people will flood government offices for Social Security benefits, medical care, and any number of other taxpayer funded social programs thus evaporating already scarce resources.
People need to wake up and see what is happening. Obama’s open secret is that he believes in Socialism. He told that to Joe the Plumber and said it in 2001 during an interview. Barack Obama believes that wealth in this country should be taken from people who earn it and given to those who do not. His idea of Utopia is wealth redistribution and no matter how Joe Biden tries to spin it and no matter how his supporters try to ignore it the plain fact is, the words came out of Barack Obama’s mouth.
If it isn’t bad enough that Obama is willing to give taxpayer money out like candy at Halloween, the government wants to confiscate more of your money in order to redistribute it to others. There is a plan being bounced around to force you to move all of your 401 (k) retirement money into government accounts. The plan will either involve putting it in a different pool or adding it to “your” Social Security fund which is a misnomer because the money goes to the general fund where Congress takes it and spends it. To top it off, government will require you to contribute 5% of you pay to the fund thus taking more of your money to redistribute.
This plan, which was discussed by some economist, involves redistribution of wealth. She said that it would give everyone an equal share (wealth redistribution). This is money that you have worked for and that you have invested in different accounts that, despite current problems, will do well for you. The government will require you to pool all the money you saved with the money of others and then the government will decide who gets how much of it. If you have $100 and someone else has $50, you both get $75. In other words, Obama and the Democrats will redistribute $25 of your money to someone else.
If Barack Obama becomes the president and allows millions of illegals to become citizens they will be standing in line with their hands out waiting for you to hand them the money you saved for your retirement.
I have said before that Social Security was a method used by the government to gain and keep control over people. They hold Social Security hostage in order to influence the lives of the elderly and the way they vote. They keep people dependent on government so that the government can control the population. Allowing them to take your retirement will ensure that instead of retiring and living the life you worked hard to achieve, you will live the life government decides you should live.
That, my friends, is nothing more than Socialism and it starts with Barack Hussein Obama.
Polling agencies have been using inaccurate methods based on unrealistic projections and Obama is continually reported to have a big lead. The race is much closer and this is evident by several things. One, Gallup used the traditional polling method in its last poll and Obama only has a 2% lead. Obama is reported to have a 10% lead in Pennsylvania and yet he and Biden are spending huge amounts of time and resources in that state. If their internal polls showed the 10 point lead the external polls show they would be campaigning in other, more closely contested states. The fact that they are spending all that time in a state they are shown as winning easily speaks volumes about how close this really is. Last night’s Rasmussen polls showed Obama with no larger than a 4% lead in any battleground state. The pollsters do not want to be wrong on this so now they are reverting back to the proven methods and those methods are showing a very tight race.
Don’t let the intentional deception of the last few weeks keep you from voting. John McCain and Sarah Palin can win this election but they will need all of us who oppose Socialism to go out and vote. No matter what the weather is like, no matter what else is going on, no matter what you hear, you must get out and vote. If all the people who oppose illegal aliens getting citizenship and those who oppose Socialism as well as gun owners (those of us who cling to them) get out and vote we can defeat Obama.
They have told us what they want to do. They want to increase taxes, make illegals citizens, spend 300 billion dollars more on a stimulus package, ban guns, and cut military spending by 25%. Barack Obama has told us he wants to spread our wealth around. We can stop that by getting out and voting.
But if you vote for Obama or if you sit this one out, don’t say you weren’t warned because they told us what they will do to us and if they control Congress and the White House that is exactly what they will do.
Your money will no longer be yours and Karl Marx will be laughing from the pits of Hell.
Related article:
Newsmax
Tags: gun bans, ILLEGAL immigration, Obama, socialism, tax increases, wealth redistribution
Obama And The Constitution
Oct 27, 2008 Political
Barack Obama is reported to have been a Constitutional law professor though every time I hear him speak about the Constitution I wonder which country’s document he knows well enough to teach. An audio from an interview done in 2001 was released over the weekend and in it Obama laments that the Warren Court did not discuss wealth redistribution as part of the civil rights movement. As it was stated in a Fox article, Obama thinks that when dispossessed people appealed to the high court for a place at the lunch counter, they should have appealed to have someone else pay for the meal. This has been Barack Obama’s MO for a long time. People who have more money should have some of it taken away and given to those who have less money. Socialism.
Most people already know that Obama is a Socialist. His followers know it but they want Socialism because they want to get something for nothing. The wealthier ones will say they want to pay more to help people along but in the end they will find a way not to do so. How many of them donate money to the treasury? People can do that so they could give even more than what they pay in taxes but it seems they have no real desire. Obama followers are the people who run around with their hands out (well one hand, the other is holding a cell phone) and love the idea of screwing some rich guy so they can have more of what they did not earn. The Obama campaign sent an email a few minutes ago asking people to take election day off for Obama. As if most of his followers even have jobs. The balance can probably take the day off but the warden won’t release them to help out.
So, in this interview Obama says that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties:
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Fox
I think that this professor is sadly mistaken with regard to the Constitution. Starting with the last thing; it is not the job of government, including the courts, to bring about redistributive change. The courts are well within their power to levy fines and rule in civil cases where money is awarded but they have no power and no authority to decide that one person makes more than another so he has to share. We do not suffer because a court did not rule in favor of Socialism, we suffer because liberals have made entire classes of people dependent on government so much so that many do not know how to take care of themselves, an individual responsibility.
Now, on to this idea about a document of negatives that does not tell you what government should do for you. The Constitution explains right up front the purpose of coming together and what the expected outcome of the established government is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is pretty clear to me that the reasons we formed the country are well laid out and the things that government will do, as established in “this Constitution” are clearly indicated and are not negatives. The reason we came together and formed this government as established in the Constitution is to form a more perfect union (not a perfect one), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote liberty. None of these are negatives. They clearly state what government will do for the people because it was formed by the people. One thing it certainly does not say is that we should redistribute wealth.
I am no law professor and I am certainly no Constitutional expert but I think I have a better grasp on this concept than Obama does. What I believe that Obama meant is that the Constitution is a negative document because it does not follow his idea of what government should do. He is upset because the court did not break free of the essential constraints established by the founders. First of all, if the constraints are essential why would we break free of them? Secondly, the founders knew well that government was a problem and not a solution. They were well aware of the problems with governments and what happens when people rule over the lives of others.
Our founders never intended for us to have a government as big as the one we now have. They never intended for government to be the provider of any more than that which is clearly enumerated in the document. Our founders would not recognize this country and would believe that they had failed if they were here to see how out of control it has gotten.
But for a Socialist like Obama, the founders put constraints on the ability of those like him to rule over the lives of others while keeping them oppressed, like Democrats do to their black constituents. So, like all liberals, he expected a court to right a perceived injustice over which the court has no authority.
The idea that the Supreme Court should have given us redistributive change (read wealth redistribution) should scare anyone who cares about personal freedom. Obama’s 2001 interview clearly verifies that he is a socialist and that his response to Joe the Plumber was no mistake.
This interview also gave us insight as to what kind of people he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The court recently ruled in favor of redistributive change in the Kelo decision. That was not popular and it did not settle well with most people because it gave government the right to take property from one group and give it to another. The kind of judges Obama would appoint will make that decision look good in comparison.
We have to stop this now.
Tags: civil rights, Obama, reditributive change, socialism, supreme court, wealh redistribution
Get Your Facts Straight Joe, And It Is Socialism
Oct 27, 2008 Political
Joe Biden was interviewed by a reporter from WFTV and he was not happy with the questions that she asked. Unlike most members of the media, this reporter asked tough questions and Biden had a meltdown. She asked about Obama’s ties to ACORN and Biden said that the campaign NEVER gave any money to ACORN. During the questioning he told her to get her facts straight. Well, looks like Joe is the one who has problems with the facts because the campaign did pay ACORN over $800,000 to get out the vote (not set up stages like their reports indicated). This directly contradicts Biden’s assertion that the campaign is responsible for its get out the vote efforts.
The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,00 for “voter turnout” work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on “staging, sound and light” and “advance work.” Newsmax
The reporter asked if Obama’s plan to spread the wealth was Socialism and Biden lost it. The campaign was so upset that someone would dare to ask tough questions that it cancelled an interview with Biden’s wife and the campaign sent a letter stating that the station would get no further interviews.
It is interesting that Joe the Senator would get so upset at these tough questions. Sarah Palin has had to address tough questions that have little relevance to the campaign. How many people know, off the tops of their heads, the Supreme Court rulings by name? The lawyers might know the major ones but that is the kind of question designed to say, “gotcha.” Some advance notice on these kinds of questions is not unreasonable so that the candidate can come prepared. The kinds of questions asked of Joe Biden were reasonable but he lost it. Palin has mangled the answers to some questions and has taken the criticism on the chin and continued on. Who do we want, a cry baby or a person with thick skin who continues on regardless of how tough it gets. Imagine the outcry if the McCain campaign cut off any media outlets. Palin was brought in slowly but she has made more media appearances in the last 60 days than Biden has and Obama has had no press conferences in the last 30. Where are the cries about media access?
Interestingly, Socialism is exactly what Obama wants and he has been pushing that since he was a rabble rouser in Chicago. He was exposed when Joe the Plumber asked about taxes and Obama said that he wanted to spread the wealth. Later, Obama said he did not regret what he had said but one would never know that by the way his surrogates attacked Joe mercilessly. But the idea of wealth redistribution is not a new concept to the Sainted One. In 2001 Barack Obama said that he felt the Supreme Court did not do enough to address Redistribution of wealth during the civil rights movement. Yes, Obama thinks that part of the civil rights movement should have been the court addressing the redistribution of wealth.
No matter how mad Joe Biden gets, no matter how long Obama supporters keep their fingers in their ears screaming nyah, nyah, the fact is he believes in Socialism. Obama, who is supposed to be a Constitutional professor, thinks that our highest court should have addressed the issue of forcefully taking money from one group of people and giving that money to another. Income redistribution is Socialism. Joe Biden can deny it, but it is so.
I guess it should not surprise anyone that Obama believes this. This is the guy who said the Constitution was an imperfect document. In other words, when he swore to protect and defend the Constitution upon taking office as a US Senator, he was either swearing to protect and defend a document he views as flawed or he was indicating that he would only protect and defend the parts he liked.
We already know he does not like the Second Amendment. His anti-gun history is unquestionable and well documented. Obama would be very happy to end gun ownership in America and though that is unlikely, he can certainly make a huge dent in our rights. It also appears that Obama is not too happy with the First Amendment when people say things that he disagrees with or that bring discredit to him and his campaign.
Here is a picture of a person who is willing to give lessons on the Second Amendment.
Redistribution of wealth already takes place in this country. Social Security is a great example. People pay into it each time they earn wages and those funds are sent to people who are already drawing benefits. There is no way that money is put aside in an individual’s name so that it will go to THAT person when he retires. Money is taken from one group and given to another. Now, Democrats want to take over 401(k) plans. The government wants to take away the tax benefits that people get by saving for retirement in a 401(k). The government also wants to FORCE people to submit 5% of their income into a government run retirement program which will be administered by the Social Security Administration. The SSA is poorly run, it is overly bloated, benefits have expanded for all kinds of things for which it was never intended and people do not get to keep their own money. How will it work when you are forced to submit for retirement.
Will government pool all the money like it does with SS so that people who pay little will be given the same benefits as those who pay a lot? Will government rape the newfound money and spend it on what it wants like it did with all the money paid into Social Security? If individual accounts will be set up then why not let us do that with the money that is extorted from us for Social Security? Why is it that privatizing Social Security in individual accounts is bad but government run retirement is OK and will be safe? Why is it that they can set up safe retirement accounts but not set up safe Social Security accounts?
These plans amount to even more socialism and this is what Barack Obama wants to do to this country despite what Joe the Senator says.
America is great because we fought to unshackle ourselves from the oppressive King of England who taxed the living hell out of us. We threw some tea in a harbor and fought a revolution over that.
What we paid then is miniscule compared to what we are forced to pay now. It is time for anther revolution.
We can start by throwing members of Congress in the harbor.
Other source:
Chicago Public Radio Blog
Tags: biden, confiscate wealth, lies, Obama, socialism
Will Obama Spread The Wealth?
Oct 20, 2008 Political
When Barack Obama was speaking to the now famous Joe the Plumber he told Joe that when you spread the wealth around it is better for everyone. Obama’s entire philosophy is that government should provide and he likes to tell people how government will give them something. Whether it is health care or stimulus checks, Obama is of a mind that government is giving something.
He is incorrect because government does not have anything to give. Government is the middleman in a redistribution scheme. In order for the government to give something it has to take something. It is our money, not theirs.
Obama’s cavalier remark to Joe says a lot about the candidate. It shows us, that inside, Barack Obama believes that government should decide how much of your money you get to keep and that government can confiscate however much of it it wants and it can do what it wants with it. If government needs more money then it can just take more from you and you have no say in the matter.
You also have no say in how the money is used. Nearly 80% of Americans did not want money spent to bail out Wall Street but government spent it anyway. A vast majority of people want an end to earmarks but that has not stopped Obama from spending a million dollars a day in earmarks. There are countless programs that waste money that people do not want and see no need for (or are duplicated by other agencies) and yet government ignores what the people want. Government just takes the money and does what it wants.
Barack Obama has raised millions of dollars from people who willingly sent it to him (some even legally). That was their choice and Obama appreciates it. He did not have to earn the money and he spends it as if it grows on trees. His convention had to incur the extra expense of renting a football stadium and erecting some fancy background for him to accept the nomination. He is paying a million dollars to air a half hour ad and he spent over 800 thousand dollars for ACORN to commit fraud (and he committed fraud by reporting it as something else). He is spending money without a care because it is not his and he can always get more by sending out a plea to his supporters.
When it comes to his programs and how much he will spend, it will be only slightly different. Instead of people willingly giving money, Obama will confiscate more of it than the government already takes and he will spend it recklessly. He will spend it like it comes from an endless supply because to government, it does. That endless supply is the taxpayer who will get soaked for every spending scheme Obama enacts.
Obama will be the modern day Robbing Hood and he will take money from those who make it and give it to those who do not. This is, as he stated, spreading the wealth and contrary to what he says, it does not work out better for everyone. You get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. If he raises taxes he will get fewer people working or at least more of them will look for ways to shelter their income just like Obama and the rest of the politicians do. If he gives money to people who pay no taxes then more people will find ways to put their hands out.
This cannot go on for long before the entire system is bankrupt, and we are not far from that now. Look at what happened in Hawaii. Their free health care cost too much so they had to end it. Why did it cost too much? People took their children off their policies and put them on the rolls of health care paid for by someone else. If people are not forced to bear some of the burden for their own standard of living then they will abuse the system because it costs them nothing. In the case of Hawaii, free health care turned out to cost a lot.
Obama’s Freudian slip opened a telling door to his inner soul. It gave a us a clear view of his intentions and how he views the role of government as well as how he views the distribution of wealth in our country.
This country was not founded on the idea that government would take money from those who have it and give it to those who do not. We were founded on the idea that we had the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Notice that there is no right to the property of others and that would include their wealth.
When Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around he told Americans who were paying attention that they had no right to their property unless government deemed them to. He also told them that he would take what is rightfully theirs and give it to those who have no claim to it in order to make their lives better.
This is not what America is about and it smacks of socialism.
But I want to know this. Obama took in 150 million dollars in September. John McCain did not take in anything because he, unlike Obama, kept his word and took public financing. How would Obama feel if the FEC stepped in and told him he had to give half of the money he raised to John McCain? How would he like it if the FEC said that it would be better if the campaign with the least amount of money got money from the campaign that had the most? How would he like it if he were told that they did not want to punish his fund raising efforts but that the FEC believes campaigns do better when the FEC spreads the wealth?
I am willing to bet that Obama would go nuts and his supporters would be spilling their double chocolate, caramel, cinnamon, whipped cream, butterscotch lattes on their designer pants while chanting in unison about how unfair it all is (and probably blaming it on George Bush). After all, Obama worked hard for that money and it just is not fair that they would take it away and give it to another campaign to use just because that campaign accepted public funds and was not as good at fund raising. It just isn’t fair because they did not earn the money. It is not right to take it from Obama and give it to McCain just to make things fair. How is John McCain entitled to Barack Obama’s prosperity?
To which I would reply, welcome to the Republican Party.
Tags: Obama, socialism, spread wealth, taxes
Open Letter To Soros and Winfrey
Oct 15, 2008 Satire
Dear Mr. Soros and Ms. Winfrey,
I am writing to you because you are both extremely rich people who have enough money to make a lot of people millionaires without batting an eye. I appreciate the hard work you have done to earn that money and for all the years I have been political I have believed that you should keep as much of it as possible and that your tax rates should be the same as the guy making 50k a year. I mean, we all receive the same benefit from the country so why not pay the same percentage.
The purpose of my letter is to ask you for your support on behalf of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Ms. Winfrey (I watched you on WJZ in Baltimore when you did local news) I know that you are liberal and support the Obama/Biden ticket and that is your right. Mr. Soros, there is no doubt that you are liberal and so far to the left that you are holding up the wall. I need your support per the guidance of the Democrats on the top of the ticket.
Joe Biden said that people who make more than 250k should pay more in taxes because it was patriotic. This past week Barack Obama told a plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth because he believes that is how you make everyone successful.
Keeping this in mind, I am asking each of you to demonstrate your patriotism by sending me one million dollars. That is only 500k a piece and a drop in the bucket with regard to your total wealth. This will help you to do what Joe and Barry want. You will demonstrate you are true patriots and you will spread the wealth around (to me) so that this guy who is not rich can do better. Barry wants this, Joe wants this and I want your money. By sending it to me you will avoid the middle man known as government, an entity that seems to cause a mess when it has taxpayer money. Sending it direct is best for all concerned (especially me).
I realize that this will be a burden to me because then I will be a millionaire and have to pay higher taxes but that is a burden I am ready to bear if it will make me patriotic and help spread the wealth in Obama’s perverse version of trickle down economics. I am certainly ready to bear that burden if it means I can become a millionaire.
Before you dismiss my request outright, I again remind you that this is what YOUR candidates want you to do.
With warmest regards,
Tags: patriotism, socialism, Soros, taxes, winfrey