The Heir Apparent?

The American public is readying themselves for the November 4 elections. The media has dubbed the heir apparant to the Whitehouse as Illinois senator Barack Obama. His popularity with the public and the media is quite great. Is it earned would be a question we should all ask ourselves before to stick a campaign button to our lapels.

Taxes

Among his promises was one to cut taxes for the American middle class. Barack Obama is buying the presidency. What's the cost? $500 per American. Given to non-tax payers. Paid for by hard working men and women. How many people would honestly say no to a man who shouted "Vote for me, and I'll give you $500." $500 that wasn't earned. At least, not by the intended recipients.

"Sharing the wealth" is nothing more than a euphemism for "wealth redistribution." What justification for this is there? Is it charity? Charity is voluntary. It is not a tax that the government can enforce. It certainly isn't voluntary when you target a particular group, especially when many CEOs think Mr.Obama will bankrupt the country.

Is this a government policy? Definitely. Is it welfare? Not officially, but for all intents and purposes, it is. It is a would be policy by a would be government, to take money that wasn't earned, from those who worked long and hard, and give it to someone who does nothing, for no reason. This ideal of paying everyone whether they work or not is another form of wealth distribution we all know, as socialism. Of course, communism being a more common form of socialism that we should recognise it as. This is not a scare tactic used by Obama's opponents. This is history tested fact.

Contrary to the warm fuzzy feelings we (or someone you know) may have about socialism, here in our free countries, it is not an answer to poverty and class division. Socialism is the cause of many ills in countries around the world, as it tramples on our rights and freedoms. It diminishes our ability to acquire wealth, property and ultimately, security.

Socialism got its foot hold in many countries by promising to take from the wealth and elite (referred to as the haves or bourgeoisies), and giving to the middle and lower classes (referred to as the have nots and proletariats). It's a "romantic" ideal of "caring for the down trodden" while demonising the upper classes. While employing a system to make sure that all citizens are cared for is to be aspired to, it can be achieved without resorting to socialism.

This will not encourage prosperity. Far from it, this will encourage those with the skills to slack off so they do not get penalised for their efforts by being knocked into a higher tax bracket. It will encourage businesses to set up shop elsewhere, so they to will not get punished for being run successfully. Above else, it will encourage and reward people for not working. There will no longer be any incentive to learn to read, graduate high school (let alone move on to post secondary education), or work a job. This will promote lethargy that with risk the wealth and wellbeing of the entire country.

Obama has stated he would like to reform health care in the US and remake to be "like Canada." He has also promised that not a single family earning less than $250,000 would see an increase to their taxes. Perhaps he is not as familiar with Canada as he ought to be to make such a remark, as Canadians are taxed quite heavily for many of the government programs they enjoy, including health care. How much like Canada could it possibly be?

Like many Canadians expect, Obama's health care plan promises something for nothing. It is also quite misleading. As The Wall street Journal (on October 13, 2008) stated ;

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

In short, this "tax cut" of $500 per person ($1000 per couple as defined, though may seem redundant) for some, is a "transfer" of wealth from those who earned it to tax payers who didn't. For others, it is $500 cheque for people who didn't pay the tax this "transfer" was supposed to reimburse. The alarming part (for those not enamoured by the promise of free money) is the quote "funded in part by" a tax increase on the top 2% of families. Where is the other part allocated to?

Taken directly from the website of Barack Obama ;

Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.

There will be no asking involved. It will be a tax. Let's not sugar coat this issue of taking away from American citizens what is theirs, with happy notions of sharing. Please review the 5th Amendment which states "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Second, whether you perceive the tax breaks they received in the past as fair or not is irrelevant. By your own admission, the tax cuts they received were in accordance with American law and is theirs. If you perceive this tax cut to be unfair and unattainable by the average man, by all means, remove it. However, removing what is theirs is not fair and does not restore equity.

It should also be noted that the upper class (the people above $250,000 a year in income) are already paying far more in taxes than the middle class. Even if we were to charge them the same percentage in taxes, they would pay much more than the average man. Since they are earning more however, they are already in a greater tax bracket. Contrary to the image many people paint this upper class in, 5-10% of the people pay roughly 60% of the taxes. A better pitch for Obama's new tax plan would be as follows. "As a reward for their hard work and tax dollars, I will increase the taxes of the top 2% of American familes to pay for the campaign promises I made to get into office."

As the Joe The Plumber has pointed out, what is there to stop them from saying that $250,000 is now too much for one family, and imposing this tax upon a lower tax bracket? What is to stop them from lowering this to $150,000 or even $100,000? What is there to stop the government from imposing their power on people who own more land, or have other perceived advantages? What is there to protect freedom, once we begin taxing people simply because they are successful?

Also in line with his "tax cuts", Obama has promised a "tax credit" of $4000 to families that are putting a child through college, "making community college essentially free and covering about 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college." As of 2006, there were approximately 20 million people enrolled in colleges in the US. If even only 80% of them qualified for this credit, that is 64 billion dollars given.

His attitude about many things is that it is not a matter of not wanting these things, but not being able to afford them. So instead of rewarding the hard workers, and giving incentive for others to follow their example, he will simply violate the 5th amendment and take away people's money, and give it to those who did not earn it. People are supposed to work for the things they want, not have it handed to them. It is the nature of employment, and it is how we study as well.

What about after college? We all want money, but not everyone wants to work for it. Should we reward these people as well? Shall we encourage them to receive money they didn't earn? How is that different from encouraging people to get an education they didn't earn?

Obama has suggested something, however it is akin to indentured labour. This is take from a victory speech he gave;

It’s the dream of the teacher who works at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet. She needs better pay, and more support, and the freedom to do more than just teach to the test. And if her students want to go on to college, they shouldn’t fear decades of debt. That’s why I’ll make college affordable with an annual $4,000 tax credit if you’re willing to do community service, or national service. We will invest in you, but we’ll ask you to invest in your country.

So do us a favour, we'll help with school?

The credit was for people willing to put in 100 hours of community service. Why not encourage these people to use their time working a job? Even getting permanent employment working in social programs? His campaign has admitted this credits would cost the American public $10 billion dollars a year. Where would this money come from, if the American people who earn less than $250,000 will not see an increase in taxes? Even at the conservative amount of $10 billion, that would be a significant increase in taxes to the 5% Obama is targeting.

Many of his tax cuts are tax credits, which will be refundable, as with it is in his proposed change to health care. That means, even if taxes were not paid, money would be given in the form of a cheque. A cheque at the expense of tax payers.

His Associatations

Barack Obama has been accused of "palling around with terrorists." The media has been quick to absolve him of such associations. This matter was brought up when he was accused of affiliating with Bill Ayers, a convicted known domestic terrorist. A man who is unrepentant of his actions, an admitted communist (though not Stalinist, so it's ok... right?) and sympathiser of Charles Manson.

At first Obama denied knowing or accepting help from Ayers, particularly after working with the man so heavily. This later came out as false, with little to say about the presidential hopeful by the mainstream media.

Investigators are trying to clear the matter up by saying "There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now 'palling around,' or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years."

How does one draw such an arbitrary line? How did we arrive at the conclusion that three years is a sufficient amount of time to have past before we consider two people "not associated?" Especially considering their long standing history of -

- three years serving together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago
- holding fundraisers for Obama's early political career
- supported Obama's entry into politics

How much more in a man's pocket does one have to be before you consider them to be associated? Spin doctors and reporters (or is that redundant?) are hard at work down playing this matter; however, his actual credibility is not increasing given the track record of associating with :

- a racist, anti-Semite who praises Hitler
- several known terrorists and criminals such as Rashid Khalidi and Antoin Rezko
- a racist priest and social activist
- expressing a desire and anxiousness to meet with several world dictators
- has been a member of an organisation that is accused of electoral fraud
- has received endorsements from prominent socialists
- has received donations online in a manner that violates US law

The fact of the matter is, that if circumstances were different and he were applying to join the army, Barack Obama likely would not be able to get the security clearance to enlist due to his clouded history. All the same, the American people are ready to hand him the keys to the White House.

His Birth

Accused of being "The new race card" Barack Obama's history has been called into question. Specifically, the history concerning his birth has come under scrutiny. Under American law, a person may not run for president if he/she was not born in the US. It is no secret that Barack Obama's father was not an American citizen. The question of his place of birth has come up. This was first posed in October 2006. Several months later, Barack Obama posted a scanned copy of the birth certificate; however, a second law suit has been filed to have the original or certified copy presented, not merely a scanned copy placed on a website. This was filed by Sam Reid who has said ;

"(the Secretary of State is)specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people's confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained."

To many of these inquiries, we have heard excuses. They often start with hiding behind the laws of the State of Hawaii, which prohibits releasing this information publicly. Also, that the state does not print birth records as they are in other states. This does not preclude Obama or his campaign team from responding to the lawsuit in kind and presenting an original document or from granting access to legitimate third parties interested in putting this issue to bed.

The issues of "protecting personal identification to stop identity theft" has been raised in this matter. This excuse is silly, as no one in their right mind would attempt to steal the identity of a US senator, let alone one running for president.

Sam Reid has also said ;

"Mr. Obama failed to respond to the District Court's request to produce or allow access to the official documents (should they exist) and instead filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff had no 'standing' or right to know," he said. "This non-response as of 9/24/2008 in Federal court casts doubt on the veracity of the electoral system and is the principal reason for this lawsuit."

To the contrary Sam Reid, along with the rest of the American public, has the right to know that one of their presidential hopefuls is who is claims to be, and is from where he claims to be from. Particularly when the man's life is also come under scrutiny, and since births are generally considered to be public records. Often these events are announced quite publicly in newspapers in a section set aside for this purpose.

The Freedom Of Information Act does have an exemption (exemption 6) to protect personal information but again, it is to protect the person's identity. This person can be forthright about this information just the same. Particularly since this information can not only dispel rumours about origins, and cast one's detractors in a negative light. Still, we are left to wait for an original copy.

Abortion Rights and Infanticide

Barack Obama has claimed "no one is pro-abortion." Even if we consider the possibility of claiming a person to be "pro-choice." Obama can not by any means be classified this way.

He has repeatedly worked to undermine the BAIPA, which would protect children born from failed abortions. This is something he lied about at first, but later admitted to opposing. Under American law, these children are exactly that: living persons protected under American law. Obama has thumbed his nose at the law, and spoken out of the side of his mouth. He has moved to have these children killed. This action equates to infanticide.

Obama has moved to undermine the Hyde Amendment, which would allow Americans who do not agree with abortion, their right not to support it financially. Obama believes that an American's personal convictions and rights are irrelevant and has tried to clean this dirty issue with the American flag by discussing the rights of others. He has moved to tax these people for abortions for people who would not have been able to afford them.

Obama has chosen to disregard a person's rights, for granting people the ability to live without the consequences of their own actions. Simultaneously, he has been quick to act as the defender of the rights of those who wish to impose their views, and their bills, on people who are against abortion.

Obama has said "If they (his daughters) make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a child." This speaks for itself. Far be it from anyone to live with the consequences of their actions and misactions. People make mistakes every day, and every day people live with the consequences thereof. In his world, the "mistakes" of the individual should be paid for by everyone else.

Obama has supported embryonic stem cell research. He also has co-sponsored a bill that would pave the way for mass production of embryos for the strict purpose of harvesting. He has suggested women who get implanted with these embryos, be penalised for choosing to keep the life that grows with in them.

Obama has promised to make signing Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA) the first thing he would do (among all the first things) once he got to power. This would completely abolish almost every law concerning the limit on abortion. In a country where a child must get parental permission for every other procedure, a child would be allowed to abort their pre-born child with out first discussing the ramifications with their family.

Obama has opposed Pregnant Women Support Act, which would give women who were considering abortion, adoption or keeping her child, support should they let their child live. A man who claims to believes in choice will effectively take away these women's choice.

Obama has opposed actions that would not stop abortion. He has taken away options fit people who questioned whether or not they would have one themselves. He has promoted taking funds from Americans whose morality prohibits such actions. He is not about choice. He defines the term "pro-abortion."

Faith

Taken from the Barack Obama website ;

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate.

His speech was compared of that of John F. Kennedy in 1960, in which the former president declared his independence from the Vatican.

This comparison, and even the very mention of faith, seems to be contradictory to what Barack Obama has professed and how he has acted. He has acted contrary to the shared beliefs of most Christians, and even his own in supporting gay marriage. He has supported abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

John F. Kennedy's speech was to demonstrate to Protestant America (who had reservations about a Catholic president) that he was able to be bi-partisan. How can a person living in a world that has already established the separation of church and state (which he values), and acts against his own beliefs, even think that discussing his faith and "morals" is even on the table? What concern of his is it? How can a man who has mocked the religious try to campaign with a Bible in his hand? Combining these two issues, even in a speech, is contrary to what the separation of church and state is about. Contrary to what John F. Kennedy's speech about distancing himself from his faith was about. How can these two be compared?

How can he quote the Bible and his beliefs, when he is willing to cast them aside? Neither has he made any secret of this fact.

Some may consider this an attempt to curry the favour of the Catholic and Evangelical voters, who are considered to have much sway during elections. Also his choice as a running mate may be considered a vain attempt to curry favour among these voters. Joe Biden has claimed to be a Catholic, who favours abortion. He has also claimed that this is completely in line with the teachings of The Church. This is not in any way based in fact or disputed church teaching. The Catholic Church has been quite clear about it's denouncement of abortion. He must think that demographic (practicing Catholics) is ignorant of this, which is fitting given his own ignorance of Catholic teachings and American history.

Barack Obama's use of faith in his campaign in quite contrary to everything he stands for.

This a somber look at the current media hero of the hour. It's not an image that the mainstream media is willing to paint. Before putting that button on your lapel, sit and ask yourself this. Are you willing to support a man who :

- is untested as a world leader
- has lied about his moral and political leanings
- has broken American law, will again, and is ready to trample on the rights of the people he is suppose to serve
- accepts help from people who have contempt for the American people and way of life
- besmirches his oppenants and claims to be a blameless victim
- claims to be a hero for the middle class while spending unbridled amounts of money to become their leader
- has no respect for life
- has no respect for an individual's freedom