Because most Americans don’t know we are in the war for our existence, polls indicate that the economy is the number one issue of Decision 2008. Because Americans can’t list two bills passed by Congress this session and most know nothing about economics, they tend to blame the president when the economy goes south. About half the country believes the Democratic candidates when they promise a potpourri of tax-payer funded “solutions” to the problems.
Hilary Clinton promises to:
[HillaryClinton.com]
>Lower taxes for middle class Americans;
>Provide quality, affordable health care for every American;
>Make college affordable and accessible;
>Confront growing problems in the housing market;
>Harness innovation to create high-wage jobs for the 21st Century.
Barack Obama’s list of promises is almost identical.
Democratic economic “solutions” without exception attempt to correct the injustice of reality with brute force. They've convince half the country that free markets don’t work and that government is the solution. To suggest that government is the engine of “innovation” that drives America’s economic success is most dishonest and irresponsible. It is a conclusion that denies history. Democratic economic theory is about as useful as astrology or alchemy. Both candidates think government-created jobs actually grow the economy, for example, so they would end tax cuts for the wealthy…you know, the entrepreneurs. In fact, every one of the Democratic proposals requires a thorough clubbing to death of the most productive Americans, and because all of these “solutions” are funded by taxes, none grow the economy. New jobs in the private sector grow wealth in this country. The redistribution of wealth creates nothing.
Recently, Hillary Clinton signed on to legislation co-sponsored by Barach Obama that would expand the role of the Federal Housing Administration in the forced restructuring of home loans on the verge of foreclosure. The bill actually enables government to buy the loans in order to keep the “buyers” in “their” homes. Defending his boss, Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, explains the psycho-epistemology of the statist Left:
"This is too big of a crisis for us to let either ideology or fears of political demagoguing to keep us from putting every option on the table."
Read it again. What Sperling is encouraging us all to do here is to leave our brains at the door so that our leaders can do something….anything! It doesn’t matter if the solution is anti-capitalist. It doesn’t matter if the solution is brutish and irrational. It doesn’t matter if a terrible injustice is about to be done. This crisis, according to Sperling, is too big for philosophy. Too big for ideas. Too big for justice. Too big for integrity. Don’t think! [Hitler told the mob] ACT!
McCain has promised to withdraw government from the economy…to de-tax, deregulate, and further devolve federal intervention in the economy. If John McCain knows nothing more about how a free market economy should work, he has already stated the better view. More capitalism. Less government intervention. Creditors and debtors must honor their lawful contracts. Winners get to enjoy their success. Loser must accept the consequences of their poor choices.
Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, on the economy John McCain is the candidate who threatens my freedom least.
Unlike his Born Again predecessor, McCain pays the obligatory lip service to the Christian Right but doesn’t buy into much of their self-righteous intolerance, and he has said as much in the past. However much he tries to distance himself from his Election 2000 statements, when McCain railed against Christian orthodoxy he was speaking his mind.
“…political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values. They are corrupting influences on religion and politics and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
It’s a shame when a “straight talker” like McCain thinks he has to pander to these people in order to win the Republican nomination. I don’t think he should. I don’t think he has to. These people are not the base of the Republican Party [if they ever were]. Look at Huckabee’s numbers. There they are. That is the so-called Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. McCain won the nomination without them. There are far more Independents and secular Republicans than Christian fundamentalists. Very unscientific, I know, but I’d be willing to bet that most people who call themselves “Independent” left the Republican Party because of the Christian Right. I know that’s why I left the party. [The rest of the Independents are former Democrats who still believe in capitalism.]
In 1999, John McCain expressed acceptance of Roe v. Wade on behalf of the woman who would die turning to illegal, unsafe procedures should Roe be overturned. Excepting his 2007 reversal on abortion and his vote in the Senate expressing his belief that life begins at conception, I don’t think I’ve ever heard McCain utter a socially conservative view. That’s a real plus. A cancer patient and supporter of stem cell research, I feel confident McCain will reverse the Bush Administration’s anti-science policies. McCain may in fact hold other socially conservative views [gay marriage, for example], but of two things you can be sure: 1. He won’t run on these issues as Bush did in 2004, and 2. once McCain is in office, the social conservative agenda will cease to exist until the next
election cycle.
John McCain is no zealot.
He is no Crusader, either. Unlike our current president who declares war on fundamentalism of the Muslim stripe, never realizing he represents Christian fundamentalists who share the altruistic-collectivist values of the enemy, who would resort to the same sort of violence as al-Qaida if ever they were faced with moral extinction, John McCain declares war on al-Qaida because they attacked the United States and murdered thousands of innocents. He has no ambition to remake the world in our own image. McCain is still fighting the legitimate war of retaliation against the perpetrators of 9/11. He’s the only candidate who even mentions Bin Laden. A McCain administration would continue the fight against those who seek to end our way of life. He will fight them in Iraq and anywhere else their ugly heads pop up. He is the only candidate running who understands the immutable nature of the enemy we fight. He’s the only one who knows we are at war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very well researched and thought out. I have to say that I do agree. American presidents these days are all about winning the election. I have noticed that half of the time, the presidential candidates just seem interested in doing anything within and even outside their power to win votes. They'll even bring up the most petty thing their rival has done, just to make him look bad. But most Americans these days can't see past that. They just want the person who will make their life easier to win. What has happened to the days of where if one did not work, one did not eat? If one was unable to work, one would have to rely on family or find a way to make money. Now all the presidents want to do is take tax-payer's money, cut funding on something important, and give it to the lazy Americans who don't work because they don't feel like it, or their job got moved and they don't look for another one, or they can't find a job because they dropped out. Why is America babying its citizens? Whatever happened to innovation?
Post a Comment