Class Warfare?

 I Pandora  No Responses »
Dec 272010
 

Are the rich the enemy?

Two articles stuck out to me this morning as I perused all the news and views Google feels fit to display, one about Disneyland and the other more, um, obvious.

Frank Rich in the New York Times spends a plethora of paragraphs going on about how the up by the bootstraps mentality of America is under attack and in serious danger of slipping completely away. And according to Mr. Rich a particular group of people at primarily to blame. But you don’t get to find out the villains until the very end and for most of the article you get the idea Mr. Rich is simply in a mood for memories in “Who Killed The Disneyland Dream“.

CNN took a slightly different tack starting with their headline “Gap Between Rich And Middle Class Grows: The Rich Are Much Richer Than You And Me“. You pretty much get the drift of the author, Chris Isidore’s, point just from that lead.

I get that Messrs. Rich and Isidore are jealous and that they are not above using their positions of penned power to shoot barbs at their favorite enemies. But I was a bit more interested in the timing.

Wasn’t it just two weeks ago we were hearing ad nauseum about tax breaks for the rich? Weren’t many in Washington pushing to shaft the rich with significant tax increases (pushing to extend current tax policy when the alternative is that taxes would increase doesn’t count as a “cut”, it’s the status quo)?

Methinks Isidore and Rich are sore losers who, recognizing the new powers in Washington D.C. are less friendly to their preferred Robin Hood methods of taxation, are intent on stirring up the waters of class envy and economic strife against those who, ironically, are the ones most capable of getting us out of this mess their pals greatly assisted in getting us into.

Not that “the rich” are saints. But many of “the rich” Washington wants to rob are the small business owners that make up the vast majority of the economic muscle of the US of A. And to take from them is to take our jobs and our future.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Media: Can’t Be Bothered By Facts

 I Pandora  No Responses »
Sep 152010
 
SANTA MONICA, CA - APRIL 15: Five-year-old Ka...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

When reporting a story, context is everything. When making a statement, context is everything. When communicating, it is important to include context in your communication if you really want to be understood.

There are two reasons context is left out of communication: ignorance or underhandedness.

Ignorant context-dropping results in faux paus and jokes we tell over a beer. Underhanded context-dropping is what we read in the media.

Come on, it’s not all that bad. They’re writing and writing and maybe they assume we know what they’re talking about, or maybe they are really that dumb. They can’t be doing it maliciously or for nefarious causes!

Judge for yourself.

If you’re talking about stem cells there are two very different forms with very different moral surroundings and very different legal arrangements. It is important to specify which type of stem cell is being discussed because that bit of information is necessary to an accurate understanding of the topic at hand.

I’ve been over the various types of stem cells here on I, Pandora before. The short version is that there are adult stem cells that usually come from adipose (fat) tissue of the person who will be receiving the tissue. No babies destroyed. And there are embryonic stem cells which are harvested from “unwanted” embryos and then applied to other people.

There are several different considerations regarding stem cells, but you can read up on them yourself.

In recent reporting on the stem cell issue, as the Obama Administration and this new government has tried to allow embryonic stem cell research, you would have been hard pressed to find, in reading headlines, any clarification as to which type of stem cells were being talked about. Nor would you have heard anything about President Bush not having prohibited embryonic stem cell research. Apparently the writers of the news didn’t think these facts was significant information or material to the discussion.

So there are the differences with where the stem cells come from, big deal, you may say. There are also significant differences between success rates with treatments using the various types of cells. Check around for yourself, but there have been zero successful treatments using embryonic stem cells, and that despite the fact that evil President Bush did not stop all embryonic stem cell research and that annoying detail that research using embryonic stem cells has attracted vastly more government money than treatment using adult stem cells. There have been thousands of successful treatments using adult stem cells for all types of conditions.

So I think it is important that we clarify which type of stem cells we’re talking about. It’s not until the end of the fourth paragraph in this story, after they’ve lost many of the readers who are now fuming at how anti-science and downright medieval that judge is. By George, he must be a Bush appointee!

The second issue is brought on by President Obama recognizing he is not making sense to enough people with all his efforts to create a command economy. So he’s trying to speak in a language more people understand: tax cuts.

So he’s trying to pass tax cuts for the poor and let all those tax cuts the rich currently enjoy expire. A couple problems: the poor don’t currently pay much of anything in taxes, and the rich do.

I think it’s fair to draw the rich/poor line at half. Though I personally would say it’s probably nearer the bottom 10% that are really poor, and those of us in the middle class have just gotten too used to spending way too much.

But if you draw the line at half, you get just about the line at which people stop (or start) owing federal income tax. There are more taxes than federal income tax. Sales tax, investment tax, state taxes. Rich people own property, so they pay property tax. They buy more expensive things, so they pay more sales tax, and they probably pay luxury tax on some of what they buy. The rich have many and large investments, which means they pay investment taxes. They also can buy off politicians and get loopholes built into laws. That racket is one of the most significant blights on the current US government. Which shows more the differences between the parties, where McCain ran publicly supporting an extremely simplified tax code with a 1040 the size of a recipe card. Not a cure-all, but a step in the right direction.

But when the media talk about tax cuts, it’s all about how those nasty, rich-loving Republicans want to tax the little guy and let the rich keep beating the system, getting off scott-free. There is no scott-free for the rich. Corporations in the US are taxed at more than 30% of their net earnings. This is the highest corporate taxation rate in the industrialized world. This confiscatory and unbelievably high rate encourages companies to spend vast sums of money manipulating tax policy and government projects in their favor. The rich are taxed at similar rates and make similar efforts to avoid, by loophole and shelter, those insane rates.

Not that lowering or equalizing the tax rate will cure all these ills, but 10% or 15% is a much easier pill to swallow. For everybody.

It is important to have context, and to know that the media have some reason not to tell the whole truth in their stories. Objectivity is such an old ruse.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Share The Sacrifice

 Democrats, Government, Taxes, War  No Responses »
Nov 292009
 
The mad hatter's haven't been to the real tea parties

The mad hatter's haven't been to the real tea parties

Representative David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants you to share in the sacrifice of the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But not like you may think.

His “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010″ is a tax.

So what? What’s new and wrong about a new tax?

It’s the rationalization for the tax that is so ugly here.

This tax is to raise money to prevent payment for the war in Afghanistan from interfering with the monetary obligations piling up from the numerous other new and continuing social programs including socialized medicine.

In other words, the tax and spend quibblers on the Hill are admitting they’ve spent more than we’ve got and they’re coming to us again. And in order to justify this new tax upon us, recognizing our growing antipathy towards additional confiscation of our natural and just property through damaging levels of taxation, they claim it’s for the war.

We’re not fooled.

You can’t keep your yes hand zipped or even dream of living within our means, and so your forcing us to cough up more of what we’ve earned rightfully.

The co-sponsors of this bill, H.R. 4130, are the usually laundry list of suspects from the hallowed halls, Reps. John Murtha, Barney Frank, and James McDermott, to name a few. The unprincipled lot are after our pocket books again.

OpenCongress.org is an excellent source of information on all things Congress, and you can keep track of this egregious H.R. 4130 there.

Boeing And The Pro-Business Government

 I Pandora  1 Response »
Oct 302009
 
787 Dreamliner

787 Dreamliner

Conservatives are often accused of being pro-business while Liberals consider themselves more pro-people and therefore the better of the two.

As a conservative, I accept that accusation and wear it proudly. I am pro-business.

Liberals, in their desire to be more pro-people than pro-business, though, haven’t the foggiest idea they’re actually hurting people more than helping them.

The illustration today comes from the far north-west corner of the contiguous 48, Seattle.

Boeing has just decided to not build it’s new 787 Dreamliner factory in Seattle. The taxes and regulatory environment is simply too taxing. It costs Boeing too much money to expand their operations in Seattle, and so they’ve moved to North Carolina.

In Seattle it would have taken years to navigate the permit process to build the massive new hangars. In North Carolina, it took days.

Because the government of Seattle and Washington state have failed to make it easy enough for businesses to begin, run, and maintain operations, thousands of jobs will be lost directly, or moved to North Carolina, and the myriad of dependent suppliers and small businesses which were supported by the employees of Boeing will lose most or all of their income.

So the liberal mind says “Yes! We showed that polluting monster who’s boss!”. And the conservative shakes their head.

Many people will move from Seattle to North Carolina now to continue working. These are productive and well-payed people who likely paid significant taxes on their income to Seattle and Washington state. With even less tax revenue the city and the state will have to decrease social services to the unproductive public teat slurpers.

Now that can’t make the liberals happy. So they’ll raise taxes on the poor saps left behind so they don’t have to lose any of their bought-off voting bloc.

North Carolina is directly benefiting from increased construction in the short term, and a massive influx of highly skilled jobs as well as the necessary social structures and new markets for delis and theatres and parks and playgrounds. By being pro-business North Carolina will reap the benefits of massive growth in tax revenue without even raising their tax rates.

There’s nothing pro-people about an anti-business environment.

There are caveats or qualifications to 100% business centric government that I believe are reasonable and necessary.

First, I don’t agree with any government, federal, state, or local, applying special tax breaks and exemption from processes for the purpose of attracting a single company. North Carolina has pushed through a deal that makes it easier for Boeing to operate in that state than an average business started by Joe Entrepreneur. Overall, the state is still much easier to work in than Seattle, but I believe, on principle, that the fact the state government had to scramble to build this special package should have indicated their overall regulatory and business environment isn’t quite what it ought to be for everybody.

Second, government regulation is often pro-specific-business rather than anti-general-business. Al Gore profits measurably from “green” technology. He’s put his money where his mouth is. Pro-green regulation benefits him directly as companies will work with his outfits to implement the required changes.

Regulation can also be pushed by large corporations which will still effect them, but because they are so much larger, the monetary penalty will be a much smaller percentage of the large company’s operating costs than for a small company. The small company will no longer be able to compete as the regulatory costs hit them hardest.

Regulation can also be used to stifle competition and build artificial barriers to the self-regulating abilities of the free market. Network Neutrality is an example of this. Google and other large content companies are the primary supporters and lobbyists for network neutrality. They are dependent on the infrastructure companies, such as AT&T to actually get their content to the end users, and they want to use the bludgeon of federal regulation to protect them from free market pressures brought by the carriers.

With the caveats that pro-business should mean, in an ideal world, pro-all-businesses, we find that a pro-business government environment is directly pro-people as well.

If governments realized the nature of this, there would be a race to the bottom in taxation and government leanness as states vied for the privilege of being the best for business. And the growth in business would mean more employed people, higher standard of living, and more tax revenue.

The final question is: are they willfully or ignorantly blind?

Previous articles on the free market:

How Many Democrat Leaders Pay Taxes?

 Democrats, Government  No Responses »
Feb 022009
 

Forgetting that Mr Daschle spent his time outside of the Senate in a legal gray area of “not really a lobbyist”, his name has been added to the list of those who had to pay back taxes to correct mistakes in their filings from the last several years.

Is this an epidemic or what?

Geitner couldn’t do his taxes right, the Governor of New Mexico is being investigated for corruption, Daschle couldn’t figure out TurboTax apparently.

I think this is fair reason to investigate each and every Democrat leader inside Washington and out to make sure they’re paying taxes.

Let’s make sure they’re paying before any of them get to vote to require us to pay anything more than we already are.

Daschle “deeply embarassed’ over tax issues – CNN – “Deeply embarassed” he got caught and it may cause a second glance before they allow him to run a huge and hugely pointless bureaucracy. If he can’t figure out TurboTax or how to call H&R Block, how do we expect him to run HHS?

Daschle apologizes for income tax err0rs – Washington Post – When I apologize for stuff like that, it’s while I’m on my way to jail. Don’t we operate under the rule of law?

And some complimentary nosing around into the grey area of “not really lobbying” that kept Daschle busy (and making unreported earnings) while he waited for his next gravy train.

I say kick them all out and force President Obama to bring in some truly qualified people. I don’t have to agree with them, I just have to be able to trust them.

StoryOfStuff – Part 5

 America, Choices, Culture, Election  1 Response »
Nov 042008
 

Continued from part 4

CONSUMPTION: “Golden arrow” “heart of the system, the engine that drives it.
“Protecting this arrow (of consumption) has become the top priority for (government and corporations).”
After 9/11 President Bush told US to shop. – The economy had been hurt. It was not the only thing he said. Bush said many things during that time, among them he dealt with the serious blow to our economy. He was standing well in his position with the bully-pulpit to minimize the effect the attacks had on us. The goal of the terrorists was to cripple our nation in as many ways possible, including economically. To address this specific threat Bush did make statements encouraging us to not sit tight and hunker down. If the economy took a hard hit from people acting in fear, people would have lost their jobs, lost money, experienced much more damage than we actually did. This was not a cold-calculated attempt to shore up his ‘buddies’ in business, this was Bush’s way to keep Americans acting from a position of strength.
Percentage of resources still in use 6 months after purchase: 1% -
99% trashed within 6 months – How much of this is packaging? Terrible packaging, wasteful. Can the government do better? They can’t design a simple tax system. What do you think their packaging would look like? Once again, the private citizen using the resources available to them can change this. In the news just today Amazon.com reports they are redesigning packaging and encouraging other companies to do the same to minimize waste and improve the user experience with packaging in response to one person’s ‘encouragement’. It’s not that this isn’t a problem, it’s just the implied solution is far from the best.
“It didn’t just happen. It was designed.”
“Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption…We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” Victor Lebow, 1955 – This is idolatry to a Christian who participates to the extent people such as Lebow desire or prescribe. That is undeniable. But it is wisdom to participate to the extent God allows us, for in our participation we expand the gifts God has given us (Parable of the Talents), benefit others through the melding and expansion of each others resources, and enable ourselves to support ministries which further His work on this earth.
Purpose of the economy is to create more consumer goods – NOT: Health care, Education, Safe transportation, Sustainability, Justice. Governments have a God-given responsibility to apply Justice. We ourselves, as individuals and together as an independent society have the opportunity to meet all the other needs through the strength of the economy. If there was not this vehicle for spurring innovation and creating wealth, how would any development and growth occur in any of these other categories?
Planned obsolescense: “Planned for the dump” OK for smaller things, packaging. Now bigger stuff too. – Solution? Research and buy more reliable stuff. I purchase a quintessential toss-away technology item, a portable CD player, 10 years ago. I paid $150, which is significantly more than people pay on average for such devices. However, mine is still running. My cost is therefore only $10 per year. A good price. And no extra junk for those 10 years from disposing of cheaper products. It’s not like I’ve not abused the device, it’s followed me to work and school in my pockets, walking, on the bus, bicycling, etc… It’s just better. Armed with the extensive knowledge we have today, we are more able than ever to verify products reliability. All this ability is because of the capitalist system which encourages innovation.
Percieved obsolescence: “Convinces us to throw away stuff that is still perfectly useful”
Not keeping up with the times.
“It’s to keep us buying new shoes” – We are allowing ourselves to be controlled and defined by media. There is nothing which says we must act a certain way as defined by the media, there is just our decision to allow such things control in our lives. If we allow ourselves to be controlled, we are not victims, we are weak but nevertheless guilty independent moral agents.

National happiness peaked in 1950s (post war). Why? – Because we were all working, on a post-war high. Industry was thriving. Poor people 20 years previously were now part of the exploding middle class. More people were going to school and getting college degrees than ever before. All because of the incredible wealth ingenuity and innovation supported by a free-market, capitalist system which had just vanquished a strong enemy in the form of Fascist Nazi Germany.

DISPOSAL: Trash – 4.5 pounds each day per person

Dumped in landfill or burned and dumped – Burning trash was the main power generation method in Woodland, CA. It may not be cleanest, but it does use the the output in a creative and productive manner.

Climate change: incineration, super toxins, Dioxin. – Climate change does not enjoy the scientific consensus many would like it to. After the UN report on climate change came out, several scientists sued to have their names removed from its list of endorsers, claiming they’d been misled in the content of the report. The climate change models popularized by Al Gore are suspect at the very best, with causation and correlation confused and data manipulated in ways that ought not be in serious scientific pursuits. Further, the aims and goals of many of those claiming catastrophic global warming are more damaging to society than they are helping to global climate change.

Recycling helps – Recycling is not energy effective. It takes more energy to recycle paper and plastic than it does to make more and new. Not that recycling is bad, it just takes a wealthy society to support an effective recycling system.

Core of the problems? - The solutions proposed in so many of these arguments engaged the government in taking over huge sections of private industry in an attempt to make it all work in some happy circle. Individuals building corporations to provide creative and effective solutions or convincing other corporations to clean up their acts is more effective and do not have the same crippling effect on the economy and devastation on people’s lives as the government intrusion.

Labor rights, blocking landfills and incinerators, taking back government (of the people by the people). - How do labor rights get in here? This is not a list of solutions, it’s a laundry list of the speaker’s favorite pet socio-political projects. Taking back government is an excellent course of action, one I can definitely sign on to. But I think her ideas and my ideas of what that government ought to do are very different and mutually irreconcilable. Instead, make government small and increase the ability of people to convince corporations to act responsibly. At the same time remove the protections from people who do try to convince those corporations so that frivilous suits over pointless and wasteful stupidities will be deterred from their damaging and greedy quests.

“Chuck the throw-away mindset” – Excellent idea. All for this one.
“Local living economies” – Read: “Master-planned communities” Who plans those communities? Allowing communities to grow naturally is better. Zoning laws needlessly restrict the growth of communities along the predetermined lines preferred by city planners.

People created problem, people have to create solution. - But can we? All these problems are symptoms of a single, much larger problem: human sin. And we are unable to resolve it. We do what we can as part of our changed and redeemed natures as Christians to fix problems as we can with the first goal of bringing others in from the dark of sin and into the light of Christ.

Continue reading in part 6

It’s About Sticking It To The Man

 I Pandora  No Responses »
Oct 282008
 

Voting for Obama, for many black people, is about sticking it “To The Man,” – whether they know it or not. Other than the color of the skin, Obama is simply popular among his ethnicity because he is a socialist and black culture is heavily influenced by this belief system – take from those who are capable and have, and give to those who are not and have not. Much of this aligns with the black culture which believes they are still regularly discriminated against by the white man in high places from businesses. So if the government can be turned into a tool to take from the rich, they will vote for people to do so; and the socialist Democratic party is more than willing to use these votes to their advantage. This partially explains why, even though it was the Republican party which freed the slaves, that the Democratic party gets the largest percentage of votes from the black community.

Obama in a radio interview in the early 2000s stated he believes the Civil Rights movement of the 60s didn’t go far enough because he believes there wasn’t enough “distribution….change.” LINK. He’s also went onto say the founding fathers did not do enough with the constitution because it doesn’t say what the government is to do for us LINK So this IS the change of which Obama wants to bring to America. I can understand why people with entitlement mentalities would vote for him, however, what really concerns me is the average American who is okay with paying more in taxes directly, or indirectly via the products of companies which pay, now, higher taxes. With this passive, boiling-frog mentality, before they know it they or their grandchildren will be in the cross hairs of the government.

As an Independent I have some serious issues with the Republican party, but the vote is between an American socialist (John McCain) and a European socialist (Obama); and the reason my founding fathers came to America was to NOT be like Europe and be our own nation. I hope my generation, which by many polls is more conservative, can steer this great nation back on course.

This is going to be an interesting election and next four years.

What will he say this time?

 America, Choices, Culture, Democrats, Election, Government, Law, people, Politics, Race, Republican, Responsibility, Taxes  No Responses »
Oct 272008
 

Is it just me, or are people really not listening to our political candidates. I can understand people not listening to John McCain. He has nothing to say and has been using the same lame attacks for about three weeks now. However, why aren’t people listening to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. They have a ton to say. In fact, the more they talk, the more they reveal themselves. Here is one example and here is another example.

Some general talking points from these audio clips include:

  • The Constitution doesn’t say what the federal government must do on my behalf. (Actually it does. It says that the federal government is to protect me and create an environment for me to prosper in. However, it condones little else.)
  • The Supreme Court is wrong for not addressing the redistribution of wealth or the economic injustice in this society (My goodness, keep the courts out of this. If they courts [especially the Supreme Court] are supposed to interpret the Constitution, why would they even touch this issue seeing as it is not addressed in the Constitution.)
  • Civil Rights movements didn’t break free from the constraints of the Constitution. (No, it redefined the Constitution to protect all citizens of the United States. It was not supposed to give give people the liberty to steal the money of hard working Americans.)
  • The Constitution is actually a list of negative liberties. (Darn right it is. The Constitution was supposed to be a restraint on Government and all its dealings, not on the citizens. Remember where the founding fathers came from? Yah, they didn’t want an oppressive government.)
  • The civil Rights movement didn’t do enough to bring about a “redistribution of uh, um, uh change” (you wanted to say wealth, right?)
  • Redistribution of wealth is an administrative responsibility. ( Keep your butter finger government hands out of my pocket. You are supposed to do a good enough job for us to want to give you money, or at least not mind paying our taxes. That is the administrative role. Do a good job, earn our respect. Earn our dollar. Then manage the money to OUR advantage. But, since you can’t properly manage the redistribute halfway legitimate taxes [anyone remember Social Security], why would I want to trust you with the stealing and redistribution of my money.)
  • The Constitution reflects “The” fundamental flaw that continues to this day. (What, the lack of a redistribution of wealth to the lazy or the down right racism that is rampant in all parts of the United States? Guess what, I have news for you, the majority of the U. S. is color blind now. Take a trip to California. It is hard to find racism there, unless it is directed at Mexican-Americans [and the African-Americans are the primary proponents of that racism]. However, Mr. Obama, you will find racism if you look for it. I mean, just look at the fact that estimates say that 95% of African-Americans will be voting for you.)

And here are a couple gems from this article.

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” . . . According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

[In a Robotic Tone] Yes Master . . . Lead on oh Great One . . . The world will bow before your superior rhetoric . . .

But mainly, Mr. Obama stayed away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches. At the black law students’ annual conference, he exhorted students to remember the obligations that came with their privileged education. His speeches, delivered in the oratorical manner of a Baptist minister, were more memorable for style than substance, Mr. Mack said. “It’s the inspiration of the speech rather than the specific content,” he said.

Yes Great One . . . another great showing . . . your superior speaking ability sent shivers down my spine . . .

a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Yes master . . . you listen to my needs . . . you know who I am and what I want . . . you will give me my deepest desire . . . All will see you as our Savior from . . . um, uh, um  . . . What can you save us from, I didn’t hear that part?

In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

Shout-Outs!

 Democrats, Election, Taxes  1 Response »
Oct 072008
 

Here’s to my blogging buddies across the ‘sphere…

To Neil from 4Simpsons:

Tax and free trade basics: Taxes affect behavior.  You get less of what you tax.  More tax on investments = less investments.  More tax on businesses = less businesses to tax (and less employees to pay taxes and more people needing welfare).

To Wes at AnimateMatters:

Truth: I saw a bumper-sticker, today, that said:
“If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question.”

Barb from XerraireArt:

Strange Bedfellows – Friends of Obama: “Life is partly what we make it, and partly what is made by the friends whom we choose.” ~ Tehyi Hsieh

Keeping the heat on everybodies (in Illinois) (least) favorite governor: The BloggingOnBlagoBlog:

Admitting you’re wrong is not easy – especially if you are running for Congress: Looks like once again Majority Leader Halvorson was able to slip by without any questioning as to why she personally stalled the previous ethics package for more than a year as Senate Rules Chairman, allowing Rod Blagojevich to continue raising money from state contractors.

More to come tomorrow.

No Vacuum Here

 Choices, Democrats, Election, Republican  5 Responses »
Oct 032008
 

Heh, I had to look up whether it was “vaccum” or “vacuum”… maybe it was “vaccuum”…

Driving home with my wife Wednesday evening, we were discussing political parties and issue importance. While both of us tend to side with the Republican party in our voting, we’ve both supported Democrat candidates at times when they were superior to the Republicans running. However, for me at least, those tended to be local candidates.

Given the current over-all state of American politics, the reason it will take a serious set of circumstances for me to vote for a Democrat, no matter how conservative, in a national election, is that the Democrat party as a whole, a generality, and a unit, supports immoral, unethical, and evil policies which figuratively and literally destroy individuals for the sake of a false ideal of innate human goodness and the hidden goal of concentrated totalitarian power.

While individually there are Democrats who espouse beliefs closer to mine (such as the so-called “Blue-Dog Democrats”) than those of some Republicans, the Democrat party requires loyalty of its members to a set of guidelines which include policies such as Abortion on demand, socialist welfare programs, income redistribution, to name a few.

Conversely, the Republican party platform has strong positions protecting the unborn and extending true human dignity in that way, minimizing socialist welfare programs, lowering taxes to allow me to choose how and where to spend my money.

Even if the individual person may be ideologically closer to my viewpoint than their opponent, the (D) following their name means they must follow at times their party calls. (Exception being Leiberman, the only man with cojones in his Party)

This is one more reason that in elections for national office, I do not foresee myself ever supporting a Democrat.

And if you’re sitting this one out: you’re wrong. With this election our choices are not obscure or difficult. There is the Socialist with the Liar at his side. And while McCain is no shining knight, he’s strong on foreign affairs, national security, and has been trumpeting for changes which would have averted this financial mess for years. And he showed he recognizes the validity of the Conservative position in his choice of Palin.

To sit out is to give up.

I don’t give up.

 Older Entries