Well, it’s been nearly a month since my last post. I want to disabuse the notion that I haven’t posted because of post-election depression or anything like that. Rather, with the advent of the Christmas holiday, and a new line of work I simply wasn’t able to find the time to blog regularly. But let’s embrace the fact that I have now shown up to the party, rather than focus on the fact that I came perhaps a little bit late.

There’s been a lot going on, but most of that will materialize and coalesce on January 25^th, 2009. So I want to focus on what we are leaving behind in the wake of all of this change and hope. That is Bush’ legacy. I have no doubt that many of you will have read blogs and articles rambling on about the Iraq War, the financial crisis, 911 and the war on terror, as well as the expanding nature of the executive branch of government. Many of these writings will try to postulate whether history will look favorably on our 43^rd president, but rather than follow their lead, I would like to comment on this fascination and preoccupation with legacy and legacy shopping.

I don’t think that President Bush is really concerned with legacy shopping. If his past behavior is any guide to his future or current behavior I feel that we can be fairly certain that he doesn’t care whether or not he has high favorability ratings, now or in the future. He has always seemed much more concerned with doing what he thought was best and most appropriate for our nation. He took, I believe, the job of the Presidency very seriously. And why not, he saw his father in the Whitehouse for many years not only as President, but Vice President as well. I think he understood the incredible weight of the office and its import.

So I think that thinking or talking too much about legacy is the Media’s purview. It is nearly impossible to predict how future generations will view the actions of today’s movers and shakers. We cannot hope to have the impartiality or perspective needed to judge them. It is far too vain and self aggrandizing to talk about legacy. Essentially, it is guessing how someone will be famous, rather than assessing how appropriate or needful someone’s actions have been. I say we all leave legacy shopping to the media, and instead applaud our President for a job well done and if not always completed successfully, attempted with absolute commitment. 

Until next time….

Go Broncos! Beat the Chargers!     

Well, this is my first posting since the election. I suppose that I could talk about what everyone else is talking about – getting in line behind our new president, but I don’t think I will.

Our government is based upon the idea that the centralized federal government will have as little power as possible to infringe on the rights and liberties of the people. With Obama in the White House, and the Dems in the Congress, that system is in serious jeopardy. There will be almost nothing to check the power of either branch of government, and their liberal agenda will almost certainly be passed.  

The conservative movement has to reorganize itself – especially the younger crowd (20-35 year olds) – and realize that it is up to them to get the job done if the country is to be taken care of with conservative values of individual liberty and responsibility once again. I call on all my peers to get involved, and to be the check and balance to the democrat party’s control of government. 

I say this because it had become plain that Obama’s rhetoric is increasingly empty. This was something that I believe that a lot of us knew – I certainly did – but most of the liberal lemmings and so-called ordinary people seemed unable to see through it. All of this, “Change! Change! Change!” malarkey blinded a lot of people who were unhappy (or at least thought they were unhappy) with the Bush administration. Though, if you asked most of them, they wouldn’t be able to tell you what Bush had done to them that was so egregious that they were this dissatisfied. All they knew for sure was that Obama was black, and seemingly articulate, and seemingly charismatic and to them that was just different enough that they wanted to vote for him. Never mind what his policies might be – do we even know that now? Never mind the fact that he has no experience or record to show his ability to accomplish anything. I guess none of that matters as long as he can sound convincingly non-threatening and can make people believe that he will solve all of their problems.

(NOTE: It is worth mentioning that the democrat controlled congress has been a party to the climate of American politics in the last 2 years, and their approval rating was even lower than Bush’s. Why on Earth didn’t Americans seem to want a change from that kind of stagnant cesspool congress?)  

Now post election, I have heard interviews on the news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) where the reporters have gone to Obama supporters’ neighborhoods and asked why they voted for him. Inevitably the answer is, “Change, and Hope.” Then when asked whether or not they think that Obama can fix the economy, or help them out personally, the answer comes back, “Well, I hope so.” I’m not so sure that that is the kind of hope that they were thinking of when they voted for him. In this case, hope means the ardent wishing for something to happen that is good while not having to really put any effort in yourself or risk any personal responsibility on your success or failure. Real hope involves personal action and responsibility, not waiting for Obama (or any government for that matter) to maybe do something that might possibly help me but might never happen because of the nature of big government bureaucracy. 

And so much for “change!” Is Obama’s idea of change hiring one of the Clinton’s character assassins? Is his idea of change rolling out the same liberal agenda of tax hikes and government programs his party has been touting for the last 50 years? (They still don’t work!!) It looks like his idea of change is more of the same liberal politics. I can’t believe that this many Americans were duped into believing the that Lord Barak the Most Merciful would descend from on high to distribute (or I should say, re-distribute) loaves of bread and fish to the huddled masses of starving middle class Americans who have no other recourse but the rely on a messiah-like figure who they still really don’t even know anything about to save their homes, cars, and lives. What has America come to when our self sufficiency is more reliant on the government than our own ingenuity and drive. That’s the real American dream!       

So, that’s my post election posting. I still call on all young conservatives to unite! Let’s take our country back! Get all your friends to read Locke, and Paine, and Jefferson. Then they will truly understand the nature of our American Democracy, and will want to save it from the European socialist forces at work in our nation.

There has been a lot of talk about Obama’s “Redistribution of Wealth” comments and ideas lately. Let me add to the fray. I am frustrated by the McCain Campaign’s seeming inability to get the point across that no matter what you call it, or how you describe it; “Redistribution of Wealth” is a socialist and Marxist doctrine. It may be that they are doing an alright job of it and the MSM is lax in their coverage of it. Regardless, the point seems to be dull. 

The only argument I have heard the Obama campaign use to counter any of this is, “It’s not socialist to take money from the rich to give someone a chance.” Or, “We’re trying to build this economy from the bottom up.” So really what’s happening here is that they are disagreeing with the definition of socialism rather than our characterization of what it is that they are actually doing. Ok. Let’s define socialism then.

Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

That is exactly what Obama is proposing! His campaign says that they have refuted these claims that he is a socialist. Well, they have disagreed with them, but that’s not the same thing as refuting. They have offered up no adequate alternate definition for what it is they are trying to do. They have run away from the hard questions like, “How is your plan not Marxist?” – Even refusing to do future interviews with news organizations who ask those tough questions. So if to ‘disagree’ now means to ‘refute’, McCain has refuted all of Obama’s assertions about him. And the next time someone tells me that Obama will be a good president and offers no evidence to support their claim, I will say respectfully, “I disagree.”     

In the recent weeks we’ve heard much from both presidential candidates on how they intend to fix this economic mess that we have found ourselves in. On the one hand, we have John McCain who is advocating the growth of our markets through free-market principled economics; while on the other hand Barak Obama is telling Americans that he wants to help the middle classes but what he proposes is the largest growth of taxation and government spending since the Carter Administration.

Obama begins by telling us that he will make sure that only the wealthy or rich will be burdened with a tax raise. He means those that make $250 thousand per year or more. How this arbitrary number was reached, I have no idea – maybe someone should ask him. The first problem with this plan is that the top 25% of income earners in this nation already pay 86% of the tax burden for our nation, and simply because they can afford it is not a good enough reason for people to be levied a tax. In fact, it is not a reason to do anything at all; they earned that money and should keep what they have worked so hard for. 

The second problem is that he applies this to small businesses. He says that only a very small percentage of small businesses make over $250 thousand dollars a year anyway so the small business market will not feel the burden of a new tax. Well, I have news for Obama. He was confused and got it backwards. In fact, only a very small percentage of small businesses make less than $250 thousand per year. The vast majority make between half a million and $10 to $15 Million. Obama has tried to mislead us here as he has on many other issues.

The last thing I’ll mention about this plan of Obama’s is that he never states what portion of that supposed $250,000 and above he will tax. Is it gross income? Net Worth? With Inventory included? What? Because that is a game changer as well, and for him to be so vague about this is dangerous. He will definitely cause small businesses to lose money. If they lose money, then they lose jobs, and when they lose jobs, business decreases, and when that happens, the markets struggle and before you know it, recession time – and all in the guise of helping the middle classes by punishing the so-called rich with taxes.     

Today, Obama has mentioned a $3000 tax credit for businesses that create jobs. Again, Obama’s ignorance gets the best of him. How on Earth is lucrative for a business to spend – and this is just a guess – $65,000 to create a job (salary, benefits, etc.) just to get $3000 in tax credits. That’s like giving a homeless man $3 and then taking him to the most expensive restaurant in town and telling him to have a full meal and then to pick up the check. (This analogy isn’t mine; I’m borrowing it from someone else!)

The point I’m trying to make with all of this is how ignorant Obama is about economics. It’s obvious to me how little these plans of his could work. But, it seems, the ignorance abounds and millions of Americans – including the middle classes – will be fooled by his rhetoric. He seems to be simply regurgitating what his handlers have told him without understanding any of it. Proof of this can be found in his speech this week where he promised a cut to the capital gains tax on investments made in small businesses. Well, the last time I checked, there was no capital gains tax on investments in small businesses – unless, of course, he is planning to institute one, and then cut it for political expedience.

The solution is simple. Cut taxes. You cannot raise taxes during an economic slowdown and hope to spur growth.  It’s like putting water on a smoldering fir and hoping that it’ll make the flames become hotter and higher. No! Remove the burdens placed upon working Americans by the government; give the economy back to the people. The government has no business running business when it can’t even seem to run itself. It is not government’s job to make my life bountiful, it is mine, and the sooner the government relinquishes that right the sooner we can get our country back on track and on the road to growth and prosperity that only our country has ever known. The idea that is America is its people – not its government. With Obama-nomics it would be the other way around – and that way lies disaster.