Lies and Marxism in the 2008 Election
There are some pressing questions in the 2008 presidential race. What I'm talking about are not the usual garden-variety ones that the talking heads blather on about endlessly, but rather some more fundamental issues. I do not believe that it's saying too much to assert that depending on the outcome of this election, we may be bidding farewell to America as we know it.
There are already some prime indicators that if Obama wins we'll be rushing headlong into a deep, deep recession, if not an outright depression. I'll get to more of that in a moment, but just for starters, Mr. Obama has promised somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in new spending, plus universal health care. If the latter is passed, there will be no turning back, and America will join the graveyard of other countries offering "free health care" (does anyone really believe this myth?) that is exorbitantly expensive. We'll also touch on the notion of the uninsured in a moment.
Key questions in this race are the following: How much Socialism is America willing to accommodate? and How many lies will Americans believe? This is the first election in my lifetime where the only two choices are a Democrat (McCain) and a Marxist (Obama). Are the American people really so stupid that desire to rush into a system that has failed and failed miserably wherever it has been implemented? Only time will tell. There's more than just a touch of irony in the fact that Sweden, which for the longest time has been the "Poster Boy" for Socialism, is moving away and looking more to a free market economy. Indicators of Sweden's shift can be found in its recent slashing of corporate income tax rates and cutting taxes, essentially giving the citizens huge break in an otherwise stagnant economy.
The Redistribution of Wealth
In a recent interview with a plumber in the state of Ohio who was lamenting Obama's proposed tax burden, Obama said, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too.... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (Emphasis added.) This is textbook Marxism. Spread the wealth around? I understand language like this when it comes from the former Soviet Union, Communist China, or Cuba, but not here. It's unconscionable that there was not a huge hue and cry from outraged Americans. Rather, among the chronically apathetic, the response is, "Oh. Spread the wealth around. Yeah. That's cool--as long as it doesn't cost me anything and I get a free ride."
This is the same crowd who no longer believes that hard work, initiative, expertise, and excellence should be rewarded. They're the whining, "I'm bored" crowd, who wouldn't know an honest day's work if it hit them in the face. Their unspoken motto is: Take the efforts of the talented, motivated, and hard-working and give them to those who don't work hard at all. Of course, economically this leads to a decrease in productivity, loss of jobs, and a further stagnation in the economy.
Taxing the wealthy sounds good to a Marxist. What people forget is that the top 5% already pay over 50% of the taxes and are the ones who actually provide the jobs. They are the engine of a free market. If you tax them more, as Obama intends to do, they will lay off workers, productivity will decrease, and the economy will suffer even more. We act like the "burger flipper" has the same status as the person pouring venture capital into a business. They both are created in the image of God, but there is a far, far cry between the one who hires more people and the entry level person, who shows up for his or her job. If Obama injects more government into the American economy, which, by the way, he has promised he will do, then how does he expect the free market to work so that it will once again kick start this recession? The short answer is: it cannot and will not. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, if Obama gets his way, this may very well be the end of America as we know it and everyone will suffer drastically.
Who's Your Representative?
Far too many in this country have no clue who their representative is. That explains, in part, why so few have contacted their representative and complained about the burden that Washington has laid on the American taxpayer. The grand total--to date--is $1.45 trillion. Has anyone from Washington knocked on your door or called you on the phone and asked you how you'd like to have that money spent? Of course not. You are not smart enough to know the answers to tough questions like that. You need simply to leave it up to those who created this big mess in our government to now come in and fix it. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank--both Democrats--are complicit in receiving big, big money from both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Does that bother you at all? Does it incense you that they are hanging around getting even richer all the while pretending to be helping get out of the mess they helped create? There is something dreadfully wrong with that picture.
One of the reasons you might not know (or care) who your representative is, is because she or he is not representing you and doesn't care to represent you or your interests in the least. The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts was never to exceed 50 to 60,000. Did you know that? It's true. Want to take a guess at what the current average proportion is? 700,000. They don't know you and really don't care if you voted for or against them. So we have 437 representatives ostensibly representing our desires and views. Yeah, right. They don't ask us how we'd like to spend the bailout money or even if we wanted the bailout. No, it's a Washington thing.
ACORN is Nuts
Mr. Obama is in bed with ACORN. For him to say that he isn't goes beyond equivocation; it is simply a lie. He gave $800,000 to an organization that is being sued all over the place for voter fraud and fraudulently receiving funds from American taxpayers. And guess what the paradigm for voter fraud is doing? It's out recruiting for Obama. Surprise, surprise! It will take years to sort out all the names of the dead that appear on their list. I'm reminded of the Loretta Sanchez (D) election out here in California where the dead and illegals voted early and voted often. All this Democrat nonsense sounds like something you'd hear about in the Third World dictatorship, but not the America I know.
Along with the ACORN debacle, Mr. Obama has many very questionable, at best, relationships starting with Jeremiah Wright, Father (?) Pfleger, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dorn. Look, I'm a pastor and I guarantee you that anyone that has attended Grace Presbyterian Church knows what I believe on a number of topics. We have only existed 15 years, but those sitting under my preaching weekly know what I believe and can articulate it. Someone who has attended a month can articulate what I believe theologically and what GPC stands for--and won't stand for. Either Mr. Obama is incredibly thick theologically or he slept through Wright's rantings. Why should he get a pass on that? Why should he get a pass on lying about knowing Bill Ayers? Why should he get a pass for not placing his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem? This man wants to be my President? The President of the United States? Why should he be given a pass when he slurs gun owners and religious people, suggesting that they are rednecks? Isn't is amazing that he knows what these people are like and what they think, but doesn't have a clue what Jeremiah Wright said?
So what is the Democrat answer? Make a porn film about Sarah Palin (Nailin' Palin) under the guidance of that paragon of virtue, Larry Flynt. This is the best they have to offer; this is the best they can do. And what makes it even more tragic is that so-called evangelicals are going to vote for him. Evangelicals, who claim to have a high view of the sanctity of life, are going to vote for a man who repeatedly has voted in favor (not "present") in partial birth abortion. Unbelievable. Those "evangelicals" ought to be ashamed, but they won't be. After all, when you're bright evangelical green, doctrinally illiterate, and out to save the world from global poverty, you hardly have time for insignificant issues like abortion. Well, excuse me, I must attend my yoga lessons at the local community church.