Sometimes the Real Moves are Under the Surface... here's to hoping that the undercurrent has begun to rage like a river across America.

I recently stumbled across a blog staffed by a group of people who supported Hillary Clinton and are now actively supporting McCain/Palin. I know the irony still amazes me as well. But the most interesting thing on this blog is the background information that they are posting from various democratic operatives across the country. Allegedly they have worked on numerous prior presidential elections for Clinton, Kerry, Gore and then for Hillary. The following is a post that I have copied from their blog, it is the posting of a "current" staff member for the Obama Campaign. I was struck by the post as it is unguarded and confirms many of the things that I had believed were happening in the background. Specifically that the Obama campaign is scared to death of Sarah Palin.

The blog site is: http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com

"sarah p Says:October 27, 2008 at 5:04 am

Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.

I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.

I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”

The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.

Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.

I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.

PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight."

Here's to hoping that a majority of voting Americans wake up like "Sarah" before November 4th.

Quotes of Note

A few quotes from some of our Country's founding fathers that I believe speak volumes about the current state of our Country and this current election:

John Jay (First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court):

“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.”
[The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Benjamin Franklin:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
[Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

Elias Boudinot (1783 President of the Continental Congress):

“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence:

" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
[Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

John Quincy Adams:

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.” Letters to his son. p. 61

Patrick Henry:"Orator of the Revolution."

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
[May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution

Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Jedediah Morse (Pioneer American educator and Geographer; father of Samuel F.B. Morse inventor of the telegraph and "Morse Code"):

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism."

"All efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness."

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

To these words of wisdom, I can add nothing meaningful or poignant, except to say that their words so many years later still ring true and are a powerful testament to our true foundations as a nation. - Jay

(Note: No significance is intended by the highlight of any of the quotes in red or blue, it merely set apart each quote clearly and distinctly)

Economic Politics - Obama's Revisit to the Carter Years

Well since I've jumped into the political soup, I figure why not tackle the ecomic side of this as well. Since so many people seem to indicate this is the issue that will drive their vote, I find it interesting that they know so little of ecomics principles that they fail to see the obvious fallacies in Obama's message of Hope. Yes, we may need to do some things differently in the next four years, but I don't see how the plans he's proposing will get us where everyone seems to want to be. Here's a little comment I wrote to my mother who had been discussing this issue with her friend and more specifically the weaknesses in the Obama supporter restaurant story where the patron spreads the wealth giving the homeless beggar the tip the waitress was expecting.

The restaurant scenario with the Obama supporters (which is all over the internet and nothing more than humorous satire) is not a serious policy argument, but rather brings to a head the age old "class envy" struggle that fuels socialist/marxist redistribution of wealth philosophies. While in reality, the waitress in the story would likely be a beneficiary of Obama's alleged tax cut (frankly I'll believe it when I see it), it completely discounts the concept of wealth creation and growth of business which definitely would impact the restaurant owner.

In economics, there is a breaking point when the cost of doing business reaches a level that is no longer feasible and/or desirable for a business owner to either expand, hire additional employees or in some cases continue to do business at all. This boundary is not the "break even" point for a business, but rather the profit level that an owner either desires or needs in order to meet his own personal financial obligations, needs and desires.

Although taxes are a necessity to fund necessary functions of government, when the taxes are raised upon the individuals making over $250,000 per year, they in most cases are impacting individuals who either are owners and/or decision makers in businesses whose income is either directly and/or indirectly impacted by an increase in taxes thus reducing their profit. When such an event occurs, they will instinctively cut back and reduce their expenses to maintain the profit and/or income level simply because the increased cost of making "more money" is no longer advantageous to them. In such an event, the ones who were supposedly the beneficiaries of the tax cuts (funded by the increase of tax burden upon the $250K up crowd) will be directly impacted by either having their wages frozen at their current level, not having the opportunity to make over time wages, and possibly in some cases losing their jobs as businesses cut back or in the case of a prospective worker, not being hired in the first place.

In the end, the tax increase on the "rich" will impact us all. The only difference is that the "rich" can better absorb the impact because their already accumulated wealth allows them greater ability to bide their time until economic conditions improve and are more favorable to maximize their income.

The final analysis, its about human nature. No matter how much you give some people, there will be others who through either determination or entrepeneurial acumen will accumulate more. Thus they will consistently be in a better financial position. When they take these steps, they inevitably help others because they recognize that they are able to make more through the efforts of others comined with their own efforts, therefore through jobs they create prosperity for the community as a whole while benefitting themselves through a fair profit. When you take away the incentive to do this, then they withdraw their enterprising efforts until it is a more favorable political climate to do so.

This is of course not a justification or an excuse for outright greed or business interests above all others, but it is a reality that the Trumps, Iaccocas, and Al Copelands of the world are more willing and able to create jobs and prosperity for everyone when they are not gazed upon as "cash cows" who are villified and then saddled with an even larger tax burden than they already shoulder. In the end, they take their toys and they go home, til the rest of us come to our senses and realize that we needed them. The following analysis is a better example of why a tax cut for the "rich" is not always a bad thing.

OUR TAX SYSTEM

>> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten> comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
> go something like this:
>> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>> So, that's what they decided to do.
> The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
> arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
> all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your
> daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
>> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
> first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
> But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
> divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They
> realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
> from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
> end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it
> would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he
> proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

>> And so:
>> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
> The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
> to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
> compare their savings.
>> 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed
> to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
> 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
> too.
> It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
> 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when
> I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
>> 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
> anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
>> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
> down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
> they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
> between all of them for even half of the bill!

>> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
> tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
> benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
> wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
> drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

>> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> Professor of Economics
> University of Georgia

>> For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
> understand, no explanation is possible.

And to think, I use to believe Economics professors were a dull bunch! Haven't verified the author, but I've checked the math. And you wonder what our economy will do when Obama is done "taxing the rich and spreading the wealth"?

Obama's Extreme Pro-Abortion Stand

In my earlier post "Eyes Wide Open" I alluded to the positions embraced by the Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. A friend in response to my post questioned whether my interpretation of his support for certain policies was accurate or perhaps misunderstood. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I heard a very learned and prestigious law professor who had recently written an essay on this issue along with the various authoritative cites supporting the information I expressed in my prior post. I am therefore merely going to post a link to the essay and adopt in extenso his arguments which I agree with from both a legal as well as spiritual standpoint.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

As a short aside, another friend of mine made a comment on the abortion debate with a very accurate observation... the position most people have with regard to abortion is usually dictated by their world view of whether they believe that individuals are a product of design or chance. More specifically whether there is an overriding belief that a universal creator has designed each of us and intended each individual to be conceieved and created versus a random act of conception perpetrated by the collision of lust, love or physical activity that results in the development of an eventual human. Inevitably, the dominant world view a person holds usually dictates their belief on this issue.

Although I probably risk belaboring the point, I just can't shake the belief that we stand on the precipice of electing a world leader (by default the POTUS is a prominent world leader) who by his own admission, prior support and committements to various interested groups has indicated that he will take several explicit steps in the area of abortion. Unlike pre-Hitler Germany, we have a clear picture of explicitly what this leader plans to do. Please ask yourself a question, we already hold the German people partially responsible for allowing the Nazis and Hitler to come to power based upon what they eventually did. Do we believe that we will fair any better in the final analysis, when it is blatantly clear that we elected an individual who explicitly made these promises about what steps he would take to advance his agenda on this social issue. Sadly, I believe we will be perceived to share in the blood on his hands, both figuratively and literally.

Although it has been argued by many that a candidate may be supported without adopting their views on every issue, I believe that this argument rings hollow on a critical social issue that will impact millions, when we know explicitly what an individual's rise to power will include. While we may argue that our support was only economic in nature, we vote with full knowledge that the other "baggage" is included.