More and more these days I see celebrities, now that they have made their fortunes from capitalism, telling us to try a little socialism.  Michael Reagan wrote in his blog that he attended a luncheon in Hollywood with “film industry notables” and heard Larry Gelbart (MASH) tell everyone that “since capitalism has failed, why don’t we try socialism?”  Michael Reagan was righteously indignant in his opinion of Gelbart’s statement.  The problem is, so many people just don’t get it.

As Micheal Regan stated, Larry Gelbart made a fortune from our capitalist free-market.  Let’s say he lived in Russia or Cuba when he decided to make the MASH sitcom.  Does anyone really believe that in a share-the-wealth society he would have been able to profit in any way near how he actually has?  Honestly, how does someone who doesn’t spend time as a worker for a socialist regime tell our country that he thinks we should “try socialism”?  Especially after he has made a fortune from capitalism?

And how about that free speech he is enjoying?  To be able to suggest that the current political position of this country has failed and not suffer imprisonment is a freedom many in Tienanmen Square would have enjoyed.  Socialism leads to oppression, it is the natural course.  There is no way to prevent political unrest if everyone is allowed to speak freely and publicize their dissent. 

In light of this, why is it that so many Americans think that it is okay to choose as your associates those who hate the American Way and embrace Marxism and other such ideologies?  ”To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” Barack Obama wrote in “Dreams From My Father,” his memoir. “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”  Is anyone paying attention?

Socialist programs drain our economy.  Liberal politicians, greedy for power, tend to tell us we need more social programs.  Then we need more money to fund the programs.  Then more people become dependent on the programs instead of themselves, and then we need more programs and more money.  Eventually the burden to fund these programs is bigger than the dwindling work force can handle, and you are left with the elite bureaucrats and the lowly worker, nothing in between, no hope for advancement in your station in life.  Is that the American Way?

This election is more important than you will ever know.  Read this hypothetical letter from 2012, written as if Obama has been President for four years.  You may say it could never happen, but you wouldn’t be considering the current liberal trends or the past behavior of the Democrats and liberal judges.  Think long and hard before you cast your vote, our country’s future depends on it.

I am trying to understand why some folks think that raising corporate taxes will solve all the “unfairness” in this country.  Why would raising the costs for the companies that sell everything you buy result in anything other than raising your costs for those same goods and services? 

If you are giving your child your last $20 each month in an allowance and your taxes increase by $10 every month, chances are you aren’t going to be able to give your child $20 any longer.  It is all the same principle.  Your household is run just like a corporation.  Income comes from investments and services rendered (to your employer, if you aren’t self-employed), expenses are subtracted, the remainder is either held or distributed to various family members.  More expenses (taxes) results in less distributions or the necessity for cutbacks.

I don’t know about you, but my husband lost his job the first week in August.  He just found another job in his field last week.  He was fortunate to find that one, as all the employers in his industry are laying off and cutting hours.  We really don’t need to give them more reasons for additional cutbacks.  How high do Obama supporters want the unemployment rate to go, anyway?

I think we need to take a look at who pays what taxes in this country.  Caroline L. Harris, Director of Tax Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, clears up some misconceptions regarding corporate taxes in this article. What about personal taxes?  The reality is that many folks have been led astray regarding just how the tax burden is distributed.  In this New York Times article, Gregory Mankiw explains that the richest 1% of the country’s population pays over 31.1% of its income in taxes, the top fifth of the population pays 25.1%, the middle fifth pays 13.9%, and the poorest fifth pays only 4.5%. 

The bottom line is this: raising taxes does not benefit anyone.  Raising personal taxes not only makes life more difficult for families, it reduces spending and slows the economy.  Raising corporate taxes results in the trickle down effect, where the additional expense is passed on to the consumer by way of increased retail pricing of goods and services, or else it is passed on to families by way of job layoffs and cutbacks in sheduling and benefits.  Either scenario is not what this country needs right now.

Update:  I just found a more recent breakdown of the distribution of the personal income tax burden at Americans for Tax Reform’s website.  This report indicates that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of federal income tax while only earning 22% of the income.  Tax them to death, and then who is going to pay that 40%?  Certainly not the bottom 50% of earners who only pay 3% of the taxes, and never the bottom 40% who paid a negative 3.8%.  That means not only does the government provide services that cost money to these individuals, they also got paid to be citizens, even though they contribute the least to the economy.  What more do they want?

I think we need to call for a summit of the American People to decide what things constitute “rights”.  We have all these people running around proclaiming an individual’s “right” to healthcare.  Says who?

What is a “right”?  How do we determine what differentiates between rights and privilege?  Who decides what our rights are?  Once something is determined to officially be a “right”, how far must the government go in ensuring that right is not infringed upon?

For the last 200 years or so, has the citizenship of this country included healthcare in their lists of unalienable rights?  Have they demanded their “right” to healthcare be protected?  Have they demanded that the government take responsibility for providing healthcare to all citizens? 

I’m just wondering why, all of a sudden, there are those who believe that the government shouldn’t tell them how many pieces of pizza they can eat or how many sodas they can drink, but the government can and should ensure the continuation of our good health. 

The United States already has enough socialized medicine.  It already doesn’t work.  Why do we want to continue relegating the control of various industries to a bureaucracy that cannot control itself?  I would not hire someone with a record of profit squandering to run any major corporation, yet we want the government to run our healthcare system?

Wake up America.  David Gratzer wrote an illuminating article on this subject last year, and I think more Americans should read this before they start clamoring for national healthcare.  We need to get off the couch, get informed, get to work, and get to controlling our own lives and our own futures.

With the election so close, I feel compelled to argue against voting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  I have come upon a website run by a political action committee, the National Republican Trust.  This site has a page that states various “facts” regarding Obama and his association with William Ayers.  These statements, if true, cannot be ignored or considered as non-issues.

Now, many supporters of Obama just don’t understand why this association Obama has with Ayers should matter.  Just for the record, many of these same individuals think negatively about Sarah Palin because the pastor of her church believes that witchcraft is evil and that prayer actually works.  Why?  Because she goes to that church, so she must believe what is preached there.  It is a logical assumption.  So why is it so outrageous in the eyes of Obama supporters that the rest of us apply this same reasoning to Obama? 

According to the National Republican Trust, Obama has a history of associating with individuals who do not love this country.  You cannot tell me that Rev. Jeremiah Wright loves the United States.  Nor can you tell me that a man who admits to domestic terrorism–and even worse, admits he will not guarantee he won’t do it the next time this country ticks him off–is a good political ally for a US Presidential candidate. 

What about Obama’s association with Tony Resko?  ACORN?  The list goes on.  FOX reporter Hannity reports that Obama’s associations would immediately disqualify him from becoming an FBI agent.  How then can we consider him for the US Presidency?

Obama draws the approval of the world’s worst political powers.  Why is this?  If he did not appear to support these evil leaders’ causes or at the very least appear weak enough to allow for the advancement of their agendas, wouldn’t they fear Obama instead of applauding him and promoting him? 

Quite simply, if I found out that a group of kids were admitted hooligans that vandalized property, practiced under aged drinking, illicit drug use, and did not honor God, I would not want my children to associate with these kids.  How much more do I not want the leader of my country – who represents and upholds our way of life in front of the whole world - to associate with domestic terrorists, slumlords, or anyone who damns this country.

What will it take to apply the same discernment to Barack Obama that we apply to anyone else in our daily lives?  Barack Obama has demonstrated a serious lack of judgement when choosing his associates.  Do we want to give him the office of US President to demonstrate further lack of judgement?

My son works with people who believe that rich people shouldn’t be allowed to be rich or become richer.  These folks tell him that it isn’t fair, that some people have been working a long time and still haven’t gotten what they want out of life, so the people who have more than them should share. 

I disagree.  I told him to tell them this little scenario.

My son, who is 17, now attends college.  We only have one car, and he just started his first job right before this semester.  He rides his bike to work and takes the very unreliable public bus to school every day.  He only works a few hours a day, mostly because he wants to have free time but partly because it is difficult to coordinate additional work hours into his day with the transportation issues.

I believe he should compare his paycheck with some of the paychecks of the employees that work more hours or make a higher wage than he does.  Since those paychecks will be larger than his, I believe the people making more should split the difference between the paychecks with my son.  I mean, why should he give up his free time to work more hours?  Why should he wait until he has earned a raise or a promotion to make enough money to get the things he wants to buy?  Better yet, why don’t I just go in there and make these people do this, even though they disagree.  I mean, if we spread the wealth around, won’t my son be better off?  Isn’t he entitled to this?

What I propose in this scenario is wealth redistribution.  It is socialist in nature and only rewards those who do not work while punishing those who do.  It is a complete slap in the face for anyone who has the character to work hard for the things he or she has, since it implies that the sacrifices made upholding a good work ethic are all for nothing and those who choose not to make those sacrifices will take the financial reward for himself.

Let it be known: If I go to work and you don’t, I could care less about your plight.  If I take care of my body and you don’t, you deserve the ailments you develop and I will have no sympathy for you.  We each have the right to pursue happiness, not have it provided for us.

I am more than a little confused.  Barack Obama and Joe Biden are running against John McCain and Sarah Palin for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America, right?  Shouldn’t those positions guarantee representation of ALL the citizens of this country?  Isn’t the reason we are a republic instead of a true democracy because all interests are to be regarded in the processes of government?  If I am correct, then why did Joe Biden respond as if Republicans are not entitled to consideration?

 Watch this video of an interview of Biden by Barbara West, of WFTV, a Florida TV station.  Pay close attention to the last twenty seconds or so of the clip.

The very last thing Barbara asks Biden is what does he have to say to people who think Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden.  Biden says he doesn’t know anybody who thinks that except the far right wing and the Republicans.  That’s it.  He acts as if Right Wing America and Republicans are an insignificant minority, not deserving of having their worst fears quelled by the men who claim to be the Saviors we have been waiting for.  He refused to answer our concerns, and frankly I am even more scared for our future than I was before.  Even if we were a minority, we are still to be considered.

So, be prepared America.  We are so close to witnessing the fall of the Republic for which we have stood these two hundred plus years.  I wonder how long it will take to change our name to the United Socialist States of America?

Well, I haven’t written for a while.  I have been trying to decide if I should just drop out of political discussions altogether, but I guess I just can’t do it.  I am too scared of the effects of liberal socialism and the resultant effects on our children.  You see, a child only has one childhood; during that time foundations are laid that cannot be undone.  I want liberals to quit trying to plant chaos into these foundations.

Today I read that children were being subjected to things such as ”Coming Out Day” and “Gay and Lesbian History Month”.  Why?  When have we ever had any kind of day that celebrates sexuality in school?  Why were children in San Francisco brought on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher get married?  When does any class need to go on a field trip to watch any wedding?  Or what about the class trips to the mosques?  Schools don’t need to bring kids to any church meeting, period. 

Let me tell you a story so you can understand my position.  When I was in fourth grade or so, my good friend at school was Jewish.  I saw her write her name in Hebrew, and I wanted to learn to write mine in Hebrew, too.  Laura thought I needed to learn more than just how to write my name, so that I could actually understand a little about why it was written that way, so she gave me her Saturday School booklet and began instructing me in our free time at school.  Well, I brought the booklet home, and when my dad saw it, he practically had a heart attack.

We were brought up Catholic, but my dad constantly pointed out the biblical errors he found in the Catholic religion.  He was still definitely Christian.  He had a problem with me learning anything about another religion without his direct supervision and censorship of the information.  Sounds pretty closed-minded, right?  (And all you that rush to accuse conservatives of spreading hate, just hold on a minute.  To this day and every day forward, there is not a drop of anti-semitism in my blood.  Discernment isn’t hate, and besides, I wouldn’t dare to hate God’s chosen people anyway.)  Well, now that I am an adult with my own children, I understand completely. 

If a child is going to learn about something pertaining to sex or religion, or any other delicate subject, the instruction should come from the parents.  Not the government.  Parents in more liberal school districts should at the very least be informed ahead of time what is going to be taught so that they can opt out of participating.  My child belongs to me.  My child is my responsibility.  The pleasure and burden of raising one’s child in accordance with one’s worldview is what drove many of our founding families to this land of ours.  Why are people trying to make children property of the government?

All I see is bias.  Bias toward the liberal agenda.  Bias against anything conservative.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: as protected in our constitution, if I don’t have the right to tell your kids how to be Christians or how to have sex, then you don’t have the right to tell my kids how to be Muslim (or any other religion, including humanism) or how to have sex (or who they can have sex with).

I want to post this video so that some of you may see how Christians are being effected by the legalization of gay marriage.  This all boils down to whether you see children as belonging to the state, like they believe in socialist countries, or whether you see that parents have the authority and responsibility to raise their children the best way they see fit, in line with their personal worldview.  One man’s freedom cannot infringe upon the rights of others, and this video illustrates how Christians are having their right to shape their children’s view of their religion denied.

It is terrible that these things are being taught to children so young and impressionable.  Just because gay marriage is legal doesn’t mean it is moral or right, or that the school should start teaching about it.  Schools don’t show children how to use handguns, but they are legal almost everywhere in this country.  Sex is legal, too.  So should your kindergardener’s teacher show her how to do that, too?

Disclaimer:  I do not in any way agree with or support the father’s decision to have himself arrested as he states in the video.  I feel that was irresponsible and sends the wrong message to everyone.  With that aside, I firmly believe that families should not have to pay taxes for public school and pay for private school or homeschooling just to exercise their right to protect their children from teachings that are firmly against their religious beliefs.

Click this link for the video.

MondayX

What exactly is freedom?  Do we take the view that we can do whatever we want?  Or is there some responsiblility that comes with freedom, and therefore it should be viewed as do what we want as long as we don’t infringe upon the freedoms of others?  Should we go further and assert that we can do whatever we want as long as we don’t infringe upon the freedoms of others, and what we do is in the best interests of society?  Who decides what is in the best interests of society?

I know that the latter of the three choices I gave is what truly represents the philosophy of our government.  The problem I have is that what is in the best interests of society is really a relative concept.  It is completely different, regardless of whom you ask.

What do you think?  I want to know.  How do you propose that we come to an agreeable compromise on what you think is good for society and what I think is good for society.  Remember, we are a republican democracy.  Majority does not rule in this country.  (Thank God for that!)

Would someone please explain to me why so many people believe homosexuality is genetic?  I mean, is it because that is the answer they want, so therefore they just assume there are facts to support that answer?  Or is it because someone lied to them, and now they cannot accept that what they believed and desired to be true is actually nonsense?  Or are there cold, hard facts that absolutely support this belief of genetically determined sexual orientation?

Why is it that when people try to debate this issue or explain their position that they just use reasons such as so and so said, or these famous people believe, or it must be true if I feel blah, blah, blah?  When the cause of homosexuality is debated, why can’t people just say, such and such study revealed a gene that is only present in homosexual men or women? 

I think I know the answer.  Could it be that there has been no such discovery?  Could it be that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?  Could it be that simple? I mean, I understand that if we all admitted this, then that would destroy the argument for “gay rights”.  I understand that if we all admitted this, then more people would be less tolerant toward the homosexual lifestyle.  Many people would think these results aren’t all that bad.

I do not advocate treating another human being as less than I want to be treated.  Violence against gays is a sin just the same as homosexuality is a sin.  If you don’t believe in God (that is another subject, but I am still sorry for you), then let’s just say that violence against gays is wrong and is harmful to a society just the same as homosexuality is wrong and is harmful to a society.  What I do advocate is prohibiting the reward and support of homosexual behavior. 

I do not believe that we as a nation should embrace the liberal homosexual ideology that if it feels good, do it.  In the best interest of our society, every individual should choose their mate based on not just a sexual attraction, but on a variety of factors.  Sexual attraction often times is fleeting, and is not always in our best interests (Some women are turned on by violent men.  We should never encourage a woman to seek out relationships with violent men).  Our desires change over the course of our lives, so this is not a good basis for a relationship.  There is nothing wrong with choosing a mate responsibly, trying to please your parents to some degree, thinking about your financial future, the ability to have children, as well as future goals and aspirations.  Sexual attraction should be a factor, but not the primary one.

Basically, if there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, then the argument that God made homsexuals the way they are is a failed argument and my position that homsexuality is just rebellion still stands.