Why You Must Vote for McCain

Below is one of the most compelling, yet most always overlooked reasons why Obama must not be elected president.  His recent “spread the wealth” comment was just one in a string of many comments Obama has made over the past few years that indicated his Marxist beliefs.  In 2006 he was quoted as lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court had not taken a more active role in income redistribution!

Did you catch that?  Obama expects the courts to force income redistribution by judicial rule.  As president, he will be the one appointing these judges to the Supreme and federal courts.  With a democrat controlled congress, there will be no opposition to these appointments.  So basically, the decisions that affect our lives will no longer by a result of the “people’s vote” but will emanate from Obama appointed judges with lifetime appointments, who are accountable to “NO ONE!”

Steven Calabresi spells this out quite clearly in the following article titled, “Obama’s Redistribution Constitution.  A bit lengthy but well worth the read.

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

By STEVEN G. CALABRESI

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “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.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

Redistribute the Wealth

 Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed. 



Once in the restaurant I noticed that my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence. 



When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. 



I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. 



I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. 

Also, employers could announce the consideration of employee raises, then withhold those raises and give the proceeds to a worthy cause, preferably one involving non-workers … PRICELESS

Obama’s Tax on the Middle Class

Obama claims he is not raising taxes on 95% of Americans but he will let the Bush tax cuts expire.  Now I know that only in liberal Washington political speak can someone let tax rates return to previous levels and say he’s not actively raising taxes.  Truth is, even the 50K a year wage earner is getting screwed under Obama.  Raising taxes at all, let alone during hard economic times is a recipe for disaster.  But I guess if your goal is to create a Socialist State so we can make the Europeans happy, then this isn’t so bad.  And this doesn’t ever include the capital gains and payroll tax increases Obama has in store.

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $50,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married -  Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $75,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000
Tax: Single	$17,923	$15,739	$15,620	$17,923	$2,303
Tax: Married -  Filing Joint	$15,293	$12,364	$12,219	$15,293	$3,074
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$18,803	$16,083	$15,972	$18,803	$2,831
Tax: Head of Household	$16,424	$14,439	$14,344	$16,424	$2,080

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $100,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Tax: Single	$25,673	$22,739	$22,620	$25,673	$3,053
Tax: Married -  Filing Joint	$22,293	$18,614	$18,469	$22,293	$3,824
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$27,515	$23,715	$23,504	$27,515	$4,011
Tax: Head of Household	$23,699	$20,741	$20,594	$23,699	$3,015

*   When “President” Obama allows President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase

Sarah Palin’s Success

Sometimes I read someone else’s comments and realize I could not have said it any better, so what follows is a piece written by Byron York.  It really speaks to the criticisms the press, and yes, many elitist women and men have thrown at her.  You would think that with energy and ethics in government being two problems high on people’s list of what needs to be addressed, that, given Palin’s success in these areas, people would be quick to support her.  But I guess America’s elitists just can’t stomach a virtuous woman leading the nation.

THE PALIN PIPELINE
The top issue of the 2006 Alaska governor’s race was whether, and how, to build a pipeline to bring the estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under Alaska’s North Slope to market. Palin’s Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski — a man who had spent nearly 22 years in the U.S. Senate before becoming governor — wanted to make a deal with three big oil companies, Exxon Mobil, BP, and Conoco Phillips. 

A lot of critics, including Palin, thought Murkowski’s proposed deal gave too much to the companies. For one thing, it called for Alaska to relinquish its right to tax the pipeline, and instead agree to a series of payments from the oil companies — payments that would be locked in for as long as 45 years. In addition, the deal would have rewritten leases and other regulatory devices that the state normally controls. It was an unprecedented proposal, representing sweeping changes from the traditional way of doing business — and not to the state’s advantage.

Palin defeated Murkowski in the primary, and went on to win the governorship, on a platform of throwing out the old deal and starting fresh. Once in office, she was deeply involved in making that happen. “She had four principles she wanted to bring to the process,” says Joe Balash, who served as Palin’s special assistant for energy issues. “One, to have competition. Two, to have clear and objective measures of progress, because with a massive project like that it’s going to be years before any dirt turns. Three, there had to be a commitment to expansion [the pipeline would have to be big enough to handle more gas in the future]. And four, it had to be done without surrendering the state’s sovereignty.”

It was a big, and extraordinarily complex, task. There was no consensus on how it should be done. But Palin, by all accounts, assembled a first-rate group of people to come up with what eventually became a proposal to grant a license to the company TransCanada to build the pipeline. “I give her credit for hiring good people,” says Beth Kerttula, the Democratic minority leader in the Alaska house of representatives who worked with Palin on oil and gas issues and has lately emerged as one of Palin’s leading critics. “She had a strong team.”

There were times during the negotiations when it appeared Palin’s proposal would fall through, perhaps not even getting to a vote in the legislature. Associates say she was determined to prevent that. “She went literally from office to office asking that, regardless of how people intended to vote, that they permit a vote to take place,” Balash recalls. “If she hadn’t made those visits, it in all likelihood would never have come to a vote.”

And when she made those visits, she scored points with legislators of both parties. “On the issues where I worked with her, she listened, and in the long run, she even overrode her own team on things that House Democrats thought were important,” Kerttula recalls. Last summer, Palin’s strategy led to victory, when Alaska’s house and senate approved the TransCanada proposal.

Noting that Palin had also, in 2007, won a fight to raise taxes on the energy companies, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the pipeline deal “sealed the popular Republican governor’s second major victory in two years against not only her opponents in the Legislature but also major oil companies Palin sometimes has poked publicly.” Her approval rating soared.

RUFFLING A TON OF FEATHERS
Palin’s other top priority was an overhaul of the state’s ethics laws. It became something of a signature issue for her. In 2003, after she served as mayor of Wasilla and had run unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor, she was appointed to chair the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. While there, she became convinced that fellow commissioner Randy Ruedrich, the head of the Alaska Republican party, was conducting party business on the commission’s time. Palin filed an ethics complaint against Ruedrich, leading to a long and contentious investigation. In 2004, Ruedrich admitted guilt and agreed to pay a $12,000 fine, which was the largest such punishment ever in Alaska.

Palin’s actions associated her with ethics and reform in the minds of many Alaskans, and it paid off when she ran for governor. In addition to the Ruedrich matter, the state faced several other high-profile government-corruption cases, and it was not terribly unusual to find state lawmakers who had consulting contracts with companies that had business before the legislature. “As a candidate, she owned the ethics issue,” says John Bitney, who was Palin’s top adviser on ethics. “It was who she was. And it was pretty clear that there was a political groundswell to make changes.” 

Once in office, Palin asked a prominent former legislator, Ethan Berkowitz, and a former U.S. attorney, Wev Shea, to write a position paper on ethics. The move did not endear her to Republicans in the legislature, because Berkowitz was a Democrat, and Shea was a vocal critic of Republicans (though a Republican himself). “She ruffled a ton of feathers,” says Paulette Simpson, a Palin ally who is president of the Alaska Federation of Republican Women. “That didn’t get her off on a good footing with Republicans.”

Her proposals included the electronic filing of campaign-finance reports, tougher conflict-of-interest laws, more restrictions on gifts from lobbyists, a more extensive ban on lobbying by just-departed officials, a ban on lobbying by spouses of legislators, and several other measures. Her plan was just one of several competing proposals in the legislature, and, according to Bitney, she showed a pragmatic desire to get the reforms done even if her bill was not the one that passed.

As it turned out, Palin’s bill did win approval, and the new ethics rules were signed into law, with bipartisan support, in July 2007. Democrats attributed some of her success to luck — “She came in at a time when basically the timing was right,” says Beth Kerttula — but the fact is the new, inexperienced governor had won another major victory.

KILLER SHRUBS AND ZAMBONI BLADES
There’s no doubt that energy and ethics have dominated Palin’s time as governor. But she has made her mark in other ways as well. One of her favorites — she has talked about it quite a bit since she began the race for vice president — is her decision, in May of this year, to veto $268 million in proposed spending, which she described as money for “things like dealing with killer shrubs and Zamboni blades that are not the state’s highest priority at the time.”

And then there was the time earlier this year when she fought to cut Alaska’s business-licensing fee from $100 to $50 a year. (It had risen from $25 to $100 during the Murkowski administration.) Frustrated by the legislature’s inaction, Palin went to Alaska’s department of commerce and got the e-mail addresses of 23,000 business owners in the state. She then sent them a message, saying the $100 fee “has caused a hardship for those who are helping grow our economy, especially people who operate home-based and part-time businesses.” Legislators were angry — some accused Palin of inappropriate lobbying — but she won the day, and the fee was cut.

Of course, there are lots of other issues that governors deal with — health care, social services, transportation, and others — and on some of them Palin has yet to make a significant mark. She is also facing a serious scandal, the so-called Troopergate affair, concerning her firing of public-safety commissioner Walt Monegan. The controversy stems from Palin’s allegedly pressuring Monegan to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in an ugly divorce from Palin’s sister and who had allegedly threatened members of Palin’s family. When Wooten wasn’t fired, Palin removed Monegan, which led to bipartisan calls for an investigation. (Palin told ABC news Monegan was dismissed for poor job performance.) The legislature began one over the summer, and a number of Palin’s allies and opponents say it would likely have been handled quickly and without any great controversy — until Palin was picked for the Republican ticket. Now it’s war, and Palin faces accusations of stonewalling.

Still, it’s fair to say that overall, Palin’s time in office, from her swearing-in until the moment John McCain picked her to be his running mate, has been a success. And from her handling of the issues she has tackled, it’s possible to see a pattern in the way she approaches governing.

First, she hires well. “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash. “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”

Second, she is involved with details on some big things, but not on everything. “When it comes to issues that she cares about, that she knows the public cares about, she’s got all kinds of time and prioritizes things in a big way,” says one insider who has worked with her and asked not to be named. “For the mundane tasks of government . . . say, regulations for the Kenai River, she instead looks for recommendations from her cabinet and the regulatory agencies, but she’s not going to get in and argue specific details.”

Third, she is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises. “There was this absolute expectation that if it was an issue that had been talked about during the campaign and there was a particular commitment that she had made, then we had to live up to it, no matter how difficult,” says Balash, “because her big thing was restoring the confidence of the public in state government.”

It should be noted that none of that makes Palin unerringly conservative. Yes, she calls herself a conservative, and she seems dedicated to reducing the size and cost of government when she can, but she’s also perfectly happy to raise taxes on a big, unpopular (oil) company, if that’s what voters want. Her conservatism comes with a substantial portion of populism.

Still, Palin’s record in office has quieted many of those who said she simply did not have the experience or ability to serve as governor. “She’s been in office for two years now and has been fairly successful,” says Gene Therriault, a Republican state senator and an ally of Palin’s, “which either belies the argument that she was not prepared or is an argument for the fact that she is a quick study.”

 

Election News Continued

Busy day at work and got home late so I am not writing much tonight except to say again that this presidential race is extremely close and could go either way.  The news media, democrats, and yes, sadly, some republicans are calling this race over and getting ready for an Obama presidency.  PLEASE DON’T FALL FOR IT!

More tomorrow.  Enjoy the cartoon.

Nonpartisan Judicial Ballot Choices

On the November 4th ballots for Volusia and Flagler Counties in Florida, there are six judges with the question, “should this judge be retained in office?”  If you are like most, you probably have no idea who these people are or even what purpose they serve.

The first judge is Charles T Wells.  He serves on the Florida Supreme Court.  He was appointed to the court in 1994 by Governor Chiles and has served since that time.  The other five judges on the ballot serve on the 5th District Appeals Court located in Daytona Beach.  Under the Florida Constitution, Judges on the state supreme, circuit, and appeals courts are appointed by the governor, but then must be retained for successive terms by a vote of the people.  Originally, judges ran against each other in races similar to other elected officials.  The process became tainted by corruption and was changed to the current system in 1976 by a constitutional amendment. You will find judges up for vote on retention just about every election because terms are staggered.

So the question is, How should you vote with regards to these judges.

Well, here is my rule of thumb, for what its worth.  Unless I personally know the judge and I am comfortable that the decisions he or she has made are consistent with proper judicial conduct, I VOTE NO.  How many times have I voted yes in the last 15 years?  NEVER.

Here is an example.  Most people remember the 2000 presidential election mess that occurred in Florida.  Briefly, what happened was that Gore asked for a recount because of the closeness of the statewide election.  He had every right to request a recount, but the recount, by Florida law, had to be done in the entire state.  Gore only wanted recounts in four heavy democrat counties.  He felt he would be able to pick up the necessary number of votes to beat Bush by recounting Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties.  Gore’s legal team did not want a statewide recount because they felt that would produce more votes for Bush.

Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State was required by law to allow a statewide recount, or certify the election in a specific number of days, or she would be violating the law.  Gore petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to allow a recount in just the four counties.  The Florida Supreme Court, in a decision they had no legal right to make, ordered that Katherine Harris could not certify the election as required by law, and had to allow the four county recount.  Katherine Harris was caught between a rock and a hard place.  On one hand she was required to comply with Florida law, but on the other hand was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to, in essence break the law and do what they demanded.  This was classic judicial arrogance on full display in front of the whole world.

Bush had no choice but to petition the US supreme Court to overturn this absurd ruling by the Florida court.  The US Supreme Court rulled that the Florida court did not have the constitutional right to order Katherine Harris to break Florida law, and the four county recount was ordered stopped, and the election was certified.

Now why all of this history?  Because Charles T. Wells was one of the justices on the Florida Supreme Court that made that ridiculous decision that forever changed the way we conduct elections.  The whole “debacle of 2000″ as it is so often called was caused by Gore and the Florida Supreme Court.  Therefore, no judge who was part of that decision will ever get my vote to be retained.

The problem is, most voters just figure that these judges are on the court, so they must be good people, so they vote to retain.  I find that kind of logic stupid and therefore, they all get a NO vote from me.

Florida’s Constitutional Amendments

Today I will give my two cents on the proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution that appear on this November’s ballot.  Even if you don’t live in Florida, some of what I have to say may be applicable to your state.

Without getting into the long and often boring discussion of the differences between constitutional and legislative issues, I will attempt to explain a few characteristics I believe should apply to both our US constitution and all state constitutions.  A constitution is the standard by which all of our laws are constructed.  It is the document which guarantees our freedom.  A constitution is NOT, as some claim, a living, changing, breathing document.  It should be very difficult to change a constitution.  That is why it requires 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of every state legislature to amend the US constitution.  Change should come through legislation.  That is why we, the people elect legislators to enact change.

Florida’s constitution, in my opinion, is loaded with amendments that should never be part of a constitution.  You may recall several years ago, voters amended the constitution to dictate how pigs should be raised in Florida!  That became a national joke in many circles.  Until last year, the Florida constitution could be amended by a simple majority of voters.  Now, an amendment must pass with 60% of the vote making it a little more difficult to change.

On November 4th, there are 6 proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution.  My rule of thumb on all amendments is to VOTE NO on every one of them, UNLESS I fully understand what it is saying and I agree with it.  And I mean, “fully understand” the amendment, not partially.  Many amendments sound real good but are usually hidden tax increases. 

Personally, I am voting NO on all amendments EXCEPT #2, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.

ELECTION NEWS

One of our nation’s most crucial elections will occur just 2 weeks from now.  Here are some facts about this election followed by some important things you should know as election day approaches.

Election Facts:

This election is for our next president.  This IS NOT the only race we vote for.  Every one of the 435 members of the US congress are up for election which means every one voting will be voting for their congressman.  Do not overlook that very important vote.

One third of all US senators are up for election.  Depending on where you live, you may also be voting for your senator.  In my home state of Florida, neither US senate seat is up for election so Floridians will not have that option this election.

In addition, all states have elections for state senators and representatives.  These are all important positions that impact your life. Do not skip them!

And finally, there will be many races at the county and local levels for commissioners, councilmen, judges, mayors, sheriffs as well as numerous ballot initiatives, propositions, and constitutional amendments.

Don’t vote just for president and stop there.  Get familiar with those running for other offices as well as all ballot initiatives. 

NOW HERE IS MY TAKE ON THE ELECTION:

The race for president will be down to the wire.  Vote at all cost.  Do not be swayed by polls or news stories that want to determine the winner before the election.  WATCH OUT – on election afternoon, the major news outlets will most likely use exit polling data and begin announcing that it is shaping up like a landslide for Obama.  This will occur early to mid afternoon.  REMEMBER THIS – These presidential exit polls were grossly wrong in 2000 and 2004 when they suggested Gore and Kerry wins early in the afternoon of election day.  This is an orchestrated attempt by the media to discourage voters who have not yet voted, to stay home and not vote.  If they can convince you the election is over before you have voted, then you will likely not vote because you will think your vote will not matter.  DON’T FALL FOR THAT TRAP!  VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

As some may know, I am not a big fan of McCain.  I am a conservative and John McCain is not.  However, his choice of Sarah Palin has brought some conservative principles to this race, and Senator Obama is a Marxist.  Now, those are strong words, but when Obama tells us that “we need to spread the wealth,” that ought to scare the daylights out of everyone who calls them self an American!  Just who’s wealth does Obama expect to take and who gives him the right to determine who it should be spread to?  This is right out of the teachings of Karl Marx, founder of Marxism and it’s offshoot, Communism.

As if that were not enough, Obama has surrounded himself with terrorists like William Ayers, who has advocated the violent overthrow of the US government.  By now, we’ve probably heard at least one clip of Reverend Wright’s sermons.  Obama and his family attended this man’s church for 20 years while Wright spewed his anti-american, racist, anti-semitic hatred from his pulpit, all under the banner of Black Liberation Theology.

And probably the most vile of all that Obama has done, were with his votes as a state senator in Illinois against a bill to require health care workers to provide life saving care to babies born alive after a botched abortion! Even Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights League did not oppose this bill.

Do not for one minute think the “Change” Obama is promising is going to be good.  He want’s to raise taxes on the very people who create wealth and jobs for others.  NO NATION EVER EVER EVER TAXED ITS WAY TO PROSPERITY!  The average american has seen their retirement accounts shrink to less that half their values as the stock market fell by record numbers recently.  Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax.  It’s not bad enough your retirement plans have shrunk, but Obama will tax them more, all so he can “spread the wealth.”

Your US Senate and US congress races are extremely important.  Do you realize that if a super majority of democrats are elected to the house and senate, and Obama is elected, they will rubber stamp every one of Obama’s Marxist ideas into law.  There will not be enough republicans to stop him.  As angry as you may be at George Bush, remember, he is not running for re-election.  Don’t take your frustrations out on the republicans in congress.  They may be our only hope.

Voting for Obama is asking for the Chicago style politics of corruption to be brought to Washington.  Is that the change you really want?

I leave you with this – VOTE!  Remember 2000?  Only 583 votes made the difference.  EVERY VOTE COUNTS!

Tomorrow I will discuss some of the state and local races and initiatives in Florida and Volusia/Flagler Counties.

We Can Do It

A Crash Course in American Government 3 The US House of Representatives

            The House of Representatives is the other branch of Congress that, along with the Senate, constitutes the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  There are 435 house seats, divided among the fifty states based on population.  In 1920, congress capped the total number of representatives at 435.  Every 10 years after the census is taken, these 435 house seats are shifted to accommodate population shifts.  For example, after the census in 2000, based on a population shift from the northern states to the south, several southern states like Florida, Texas, and Georgia gained seats while states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio lost seats.  At present, each of the 435 members of the House represents an average of 650,000 people.

 

            Each member of the House is elected to a 2 year term.  House districts in each state are drawn up by the state legislatures.  Typically, when the districts are re-drawn every ten years, the party in control of the state legislature tries to make the new districts favorable to candidates in their party.  For example, when Florida’s districts were re-drawn in 2002 following the 2000 censes, the Republican Party was the majority in the Florida Legislature.  Florida was given 2 additional districts due to its population increase.  Therefore, the republican state legislature set the new districts so republican candidates would win them.  This is all perfectly legal and both parties do it.

 

             According to the original intent of the Constitution, the House Representative was to be the sole direct representative of the people.  They were the only federal government officeholders that were to be directly elected by the people.  As I mentioned in my piece on the Senate, the House members were given 2 year terms so the people could change their representative frequently, as the will of the people changed.  The Founders did not want the people to be stuck with unfavorable representatives for lengthy terms.  This extremely important detail is what gives power and control to the people and what makes the right to vote something that should not be taken lightly.

 

            It should be noted that in matters of local government, voters are often asked to approve “length of terms” for their elected officials, be they mayor, council, commissioner, judges, school board, etc.  Remember that the SHORTER the term, the less time it takes to remove a bad apple.  Government, on the other hand, tries to convince the voters that longer terms are more beneficial because it saves money by reducing the number of elections and gives the officials more time to learn their roles.   Don’t fall for that!  The longer an elected official remains in office without being accountable to the voters, the easier they fall prey to power and corruption, and the less responsive they are to the voter.  Remember this simple formula:  SHORTER TERMS = PEOPLE CONTROL, LONGER TERMS = GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

 

            Thought for the Day:  Do not pray for easy lives; Pray to be strong men.