Then and Now

It is shocking to me that a candidate considered more liberal than John Kerry, one who's record of votes with democrats in the Senate comes it at 96% is now the candidate of the Democratic party. But if we go back to 1972 and compare the very liberal George McGovern to Obama, who is the more radical candidate? You decide?

On war:

McGovern advocated retreat from an enemy who had neither struck at the U.S. (al Qaeda in Iraq is a franchise of al Qaeda) nor which threatened to stage future direct attacks on America and its allies. Obama's retreatism is far more dangerous to the lives of Americans than McGovern's, though the policies of both would lead to wholesale slaughter of regional populations.

On capitalism:

Obama has promised massive new geysers of spending and a complete overhaul of the economy via climate change regulation and health care "reform." George McGovern supported a $1,000 grant for every American and a "negative income tax." McGovern was a free spender but within the agreed upon framework of robust capitalism. Obama's memoir of his years as a "community organizer" lay out his almost non-existant grasp of how capitalism works. Obama's stumping for a near doubling of the capital gains tax confirms his fecklessness on growth issues.

On abortion:

Though McGovern was charged with being the candidate of "acid, abortion and amnesty," his campaign was conducted prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade while Obama's is being run on a promise of more Justice Ginsburgs and the restoration of partial birth abortion as a lawful option for the termination of late term pregnancies. Obama's votes in the Illinois and U.S. Senate on abortion rights put him as far left as any Democrat can go.

On gun control:

I don't recall McGovern as having a position on gun control, but Obama's support for a ban on the possession, sale and manufacture of all handguns is as radical a position as any major political figure has ever held.

You can read the entire article here

Where will America be in 4 years if this far-left liberal is put into office. He hasn't reached across any aisle to work with republicans yet, what's to say he is going to do so if he gets elected?

Free and Strong America

Today while I was at the grocery store, I stood frozen in shock in the cooking aisle, staring at the outrageous price of vegetable oil (yes, vegetable oil), I realized that something has to change. I began to think about how sick and tired I am of politicians on both sides of the aisle trying to decide what they think is best for America. Then I thought, 'We need to take a stand.....

A stand against socialism.

A stand against MORE taxes.

A stand against MORE government.'

When has more government, higher taxes, or socialism EVER been beneficial to other countries? Find one example of a socialist country that is stronger than America. I dare you.

I received an email from a friend who said this:

" Let us examine human history. Has socialism EVER brought about freedom and prosperity? No. Has capitalism made the American lifestyle (with all its flaws and inequality) the envy of the entire world? Yes. Is there any reason to believe, then, that more govenment is the answer to all of our problems? No. Does the evidence clearly support the need for individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government? Yes."

So after thinking about all of this during my shopping trip, I came home and found this website that I wanted to share with all of you.

YOU can make a difference. Each of us have a voice. Make sure it is an informed one!

Taxing Times

Here is a very eye opening article in reference to Obama's plans for taxes as soon as he gets into the White House. Hold onto your pockets people. It means more money for our overindulgent government.

"As the New York Post and the Politico reported “WE'RE in for taxing times if Barack Obama wins the White House, says CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. ‘He's going to take the capital gains tax at 15 percent right now all the way up to 25 to 28 percent,’ the ‘Money Honey’ tells Avenue. ‘Sell anything, like a home or stocks, and make a profit . . . [almost] 30 percent of the profit will go to the government instead of 15.’ The income tax is also in for a bump. Bartiromo says, ‘Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think.’"

Interestingly enough, Media Matters couldn't defend that statement. Sure you'll be able to make some of that profit tax exempt, but what about the rest? You got it.....straight into the government's pocket.

Now, who wants taxes at 39%? Not me.

McCain vs. Obama

The two candidates for each party have finally been decided. Rumors of VP nominees are swirling through the media. And yet, I still feel unsettled with my option, because as a staunch Romney supporter, I swore I'd never vote for John McCain. I fully planned on walking into the voting booth and writing out Mitt Romney's name on the ballot with pride. But after reading statistics about both candidates, and pouring over online articles, I came across this column:

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb....

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

You can read the full article here.

Instead, I think I'll go in and vote for the man I believe can keep America safe for me, my children, and my children's children; Senator McCain.

Why Obama Scares Me

The following is a post from the Fox Head Blog. It basically sums up just a few of the reasons we should ALL be scared and running for the hills rather than voting for this man.

Over the week I have mentioned that I am very concerned-albeit scared about the potential of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. I have not really explained in full why I feel this way.

Keep in mind, that I do like Senator Obama, even if it seems that I don’t. He is a very charismatic person and a wonderful speaker. As a Fiscal Conservative, one of my biggest fears and concerns is Big-government planning, spending and taxing. Senator Obama’s alignment with the liberal wing of the Democratic party and his gloomy look at America gives me concern. In fact, I believe his very proposal for coming to this nations rescue is exactly what I fear; Big-government planning, spending, and taxing. Is this what the economy and the stock market need?

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin last week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spending proposals are now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes. What do you think that will do to the growth in the economy?

In no way will this help with the economy. This is old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It’s plain old big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

In one commercial I saw, Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

Doing the math on Obama’s tax plan. It will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax. Tax, tax and more tax. It concerns me that he even wants to tax capital, this is the way to stop growth in America and assure no new jobs are created.

Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with moving to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It will lead us to economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Europe who for years have lived under economic stagnation and is just now waking up to the fact that lower capital taxation and lower taxation in general leads to growth and job creation. Obama speaks of hope and change, but his policies are nothing but pessimism and a change for the worse. This is what scares me the most.

The Return of Big Government (Oh great!)

By James Pethokouki
From US News & World Report
Posted April 11, 2008

Here's a little straight talk: Whether you pull the lever (or fill in the oval or touch the screen) for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or even John McCain in November, you're probably still going to end up in 2009 with a push for Big Government of the sort not seen in a generation. More taxes. More regulation. More spending. "It's going to be like watching That '70s Show," says Daniel Clifton, political analyst at Strategas Research Partners, which provides research to institutional investors.

Certainly there are some gaping policy differences between the White House contenders that will determine just how big Big Government gets. Both Clinton and Obama want to make national health plans available to all—partially paid for by rolling back the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. McCain prefers a more market-driven approach and wants to keep all the tax cuts on income and investments.

But all three candidates are in favor of a "cap and trade" regulatory system to reduce carbon emissions suspected of causing global warming and to nudge the economy toward energy independence. It's an approach that could serve as a de facto $100 billion-a-year tax, since companies having trouble meeting government limits may be forced to bid for pricey carbon permits. And all three candidates will have to confront a Social Security system whose cash flow turns negative in 2017. Almost any politically feasible compromise would require higher payroll taxes—an option McCain says he's steadfastly against—as part of the mix. And it would be tough for any politician to ignore America's rickety infrastructure, which may require a nearly $2 trillion overhaul. "We're talking about government playing a different role than it has over the past decade or two," says analyst Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation, a centrist think tank.

For the rest of the article, go here.

Could Romney be McCain's Running Mate?

Mitt Romney said in his first interview since departing the GOP race that he would accept the number two position on the ticket and that there is no lingering bitterness between him and John McCain.
“I think any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included," Romney told FOX's Sean Hannity in a broadcast set to air tonight. "Of course this is a nation which needs strong leadership. And if the nominee of our party asked you to serve with him, anybody would be honored to receive that call … and to accept it, of course.”

According to two separate reports, Romney is being talked up as a running mate by members of the Bush inner circle. But McCain and his closest advisers have little regard for their former rival thanks to the bitter, year-long race waged between the two Republicans.

Romney says, however, that he thinks the wounds have healed.

“There are really no hard feelings, I don't think, on either side of this," he said in the interview. "There were no pacts and so forth that make people feel like that we will never come together. Instead these campaigns are all coming together. We are supporting our nominee enthusiastically, aggressively."

Romney said his top fundraisers have already met with McCain's campaign.

For the full article, go here.