"Joe the Plumber" shows the immorality of the Obama socialists.

Barack Obama has taken a new low: he is attacking a citizen for daring to question one of his socialist policy proposals. Obama's campaign has rapidly gone after Joe, digging up dirt, and trying to disparage this ordinary citizen just for daring to ask why Obama wants to tax him more "just for being successful." "Joe the Plumber's" real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. By asking how it is moral to tax Wurzelbacher more if he happened to make more than $250,000, "Joe the Plumber" was wondering how government confiscation of his wealth would be helpful to him. Joe the Plumber was showing that it is not moral to take away more of one's earned property just because they happened to be more successful.

In a capitalist society, the rewards for one's labor should increase as one is far more successful.

Thus, this is precisely what encourages a person to try to raise their productivity, whether it is through education, capital infusion (such as technology), experience, or through a variety of all of these factors. What Obama proposes, however, is to lessen the incentives to work harder, save, invest, receive an education, and to start a business. Obama and the socialist Democrats hate the "Joe the Plumbers" of the world because these men and women derive happiness from pursuing their own self-interest, using their talents and their minds to engage in voluntary exchanges with others. This is the moral system we call capitalism, a system that the Obama socialist Democrats strongly oppose. They do not want people to pursue their own interest because it means that they do not derive their happiness from the whims and favors of elected thugs like Obama. Rather, what Obama wants is to tax the "Joe the Plumbers" to the point in which they are no longer wealthy, at which point they will then be subject to whatever the Obama socialists choose to hang out among the crums at their disposal. This is what is considered "moral" in the Obama view. It is moral because, under the Obama perspective, it gives him more authority over Joe's life.

And further, this socialist intention is truly to ensure that Joe the Plumber works far less than he does.

If the "Joe the Plumber's" of the world are going to pay significantly higher taxes once he makes $250,000, is there a good reason to try to establish a world class, successful, and dynamic company? Obama sees fit to destroy Joe's dream of having a company that makes more than $250,000 a year. This is not entirely unheard of in America. After all, this is the land of promising capitalistic potential. What is interesting is that it is a foreigner, French President Sarkozy, who best explained the capitalist ideal. I quote:

"America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

"Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible."

The other thing that is not mentioned is how imposing significantly higher taxes has the effect of "freezing" companies where they already are. Since income and corporate taxes would go up significantly, this would serve as a natural barrier for already established, large companies who would not have to face the potential competition of a small upstart, and more efficient company. A company like Microsoft or Google may even welcome such higher taxes because it would mean that their potential competitors will be "frozen" out because the entrepreneurs who would otherwise be working hard to challenge them will instead think that spending time on a California beach is a better use of their time than paying 70% of their income in taxes. Even if such an entrepreneur wanted to try to compete in this playing field, it would take much longer to establish a large company when a significant share of his income will be confiscated by taxes.

Thus, let it be known, from Florida to Alaska, from Hawaii to Maine, that the real intention of the Obama socialists is to destroy the entrepreneurial class--the "Joe the Plumber's"--by taking away their hopes and dreams, demoralizing them, subjecting these citizens to government confiscation of their earned rewards, and providing unearned benefits on those who have not created any wealth. As Sen. McCain so eloquently stated, "Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." That's the plan--take away from those who create the wealth and give it away to those who have created nothing. Soon the country will run like Cuba since the talented will produce nothing while the parasitic class will still be asking for more unearned benefits, which will not arise because the productive class will have given up on giving more and more of their wealth.

It's time for the federal government to "sacrifice."

During last night's debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked John McCain and Barack Obama how they would encourage "sacrifice" on the part of the American people. I like John McCain's answer, in which he said that the time has come in which government programs should be shrunk and, in some cases, completely abolished.

I also think that the other following policies should be enacted in order to encourage sacrifice on the part of the federal government.

• All federal salaries, except for employees of the federal judiciary, members of the military, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and any other department related to protecting individual rights, will receive a 25% across-the-board wage cut, and their salaries will be frozen for a period of 10 years.
• Impose a special windfall profits tax on government employees. After all, government employees are protected for life. Their pay is higher than many civilian positions. They ought to pay for this privilage of remaining on the job.
• Fire half the federal workforce. Most federal employees are completely useless. It's time we fire most of them.
• Prohibit any fun at federal workforces in order to encourage more federal employees to retire. Eliminate all internet access at federal workplaces.
• Cut the federal budget from $3.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.

Now that's the type of sacrifice I would support.

Sarah Palin has won the debate against Joe Biden.

I am watching the debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden. What is clear from this debate is that Sarah Palin is clearly cleaning up the house. She is arguing based upon the facts and offering a very articulate conservative political philosophy. Biden looks defensive and confused, and he has resorted to bring up tired-old liberal philosophies that are intended to scare people. Sarah Palin looks confident, assertive, in command of the facts, whereas Biden looks and sounds like a tired liberal hack.

Application of Animal Farm to the Obama Democrats

2008 is the ideal time to apply the principles that we have learned from Animal Farm and apply them to November's 2008 Presidential election. Just as Napolean, the pig, instigated a rebellion against the owner of the farm (Jones) by talking about how great things will be once the animals ruled the farm, today we are told by the Obama Democrats that once Bush and the Republicans are thrown off the farm (Washington), that all will be well, that things will look wonderful, and that none of us will ever be hungry again. In Animal Farm, though, the animals were far worse off after Mr. Jones was kicked off the farm. Like Obama, Napolean also did not have any experience in running a farm, but this did not stop him from stating that he would be more competent and able to handle the farm. Further, once Napolean took charge of the farm, the interests of the other animals started to decline more and more. He started to remove any sense of democratic principles by eliminating the need for public comment and strongly took action against any potential dissent. This is exactly where the Obama Democrats want to take our country--first, by stating that they (and he alone) can manage the country -- even though there is no experience to suggest that he ought to, and secondly, by eliminating any form of dissent by destroying talk radio and also by heavily regulating and taxing the internet in order to suppress the one free and open medium that is available to counter their message. The lesson of Animal Farm is clear: those who claim to provide us with utopia on earth often will create hell instead through dictatorship, centralization of authority, and a desire to obtain power for power's sake. If we learn the lessons of Animal Farm, our nation will be far better off.

President Bush deserves credit for keeping us safe.

America must never forget September 11, 2001. This was not the beginning of a war against radical Islam, but rather, a long continuation of a war by radical Islamists against the West. As much as Bill Clinton claims that the 1990s were a time period of "peace," in reality, it was a time of war, but one in which we were continously hit and failed to respond. This only further emboldened our enemies.

The response to September 11--against Afghanistan, the sanctuary for Osama bin Ladin, and against Iraq (which has been the cause célèbre for the terrorists), has proven to be a remarkable success. "Success," of course, is defined by an absence of terrorism on U.S. soil. Since September 11, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is not due to a conversion of radical Islamists. They still hate us. And they still would do us harm. But the fact that they have been unable to, despite their intentions, suggests that whatever counter measures that President Bush has implemented have served the objective well. President Bush deserves kudos on this seventh anniversary of the radical Islamic war against the West, and specifically, the United States of America.

Democrats hate American Institutions.

When we say that Democrats hate America, it is not as though Democrats hate the people of America. No, it goes deeper than that: when we say that Democrats hate America, it reflects the fact that Democrats do not like the institutions and basis upon which America has been founded. For instance, America was founded as a beacon of liberty, limited government, sovereign and independent of other nations. As the Declaration of Indepence reads, Americans have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

When was the last time a Democrat ever supported any of the above? Perhaps Thomas Jefferson. Democrats today do not believe in liberty. Liberty means to have the power to act in one's own self-interest, so long as one does not harm the liberty of another. That is not what liberals stand for. Liberals today stand for controls, restraints, shackles, regulations, contradictory and subjective laws, and a judicial branch that can change the law as a matter of whim.

Liberals also do not believe in the ability to pursue happiness. Not at all. The liberals are upset with the achievers, the ones who have been able to elevate themselves within society. Instead, the liberals want to punish the achievers through theft and provide it to the incompetent and the lazy. That is not what this country was founded upon on any level. Thus, the Democrat Party is based upon the destruction of American society as it is presently constituted, with a desire to remake it in its own socialist image. That is the truth.

Where are the anti-war protesters?

Now that Russia, headed by KGB man Putin, has started a real 'war for oil,' has sent tanks crossing an international boundary, killed innocent civilians in the process, and is demanding that a democratically elected official resign from his post in Georgia, one wonders, where are the liberals screaming at the top of their lungs in the streets demanding an end to this war? Will Russian children scream, "Putin lied, kids died?"
I don't think so.

Don't hold your breath. This is further evidence that the anti-war protesters are not against war per se, but rather wars against states that are anti-American and are a threat to our security interests. If an anti-American regime attacks a pro-Western nation, they are silent. We know the true colors of the anti-war protesters now.

The left is unpatriotic.

The notion that Democrats, and in particular, the leftist-liberal-collectivist wing of that party, do not like America as it is presently constituted, is starting to gain momentum in the popular press.

In a brilliant article in The American Thinker, Larrey Anderson states that the left is not patriotic, but that even our Founders had the impression that unpatriotic Americans would enter the political scene. The good thing is that the Founders created a set of institutions that made it such that the anti-American Americans would be able to let out some of their irrational sentiments through the political process, but that there would be enough road blocks that would stop their bad ideas from being enacted into law.

Democrats are responsible for the high oil prices.

This chart indicates that Democrats are the reason why gas prices are high. The oil market speculators know that the Democrats are highly resistant towards increasing supply (due to their paranoid, environmental kook fringe supporters); as a result, the futures market for oil is way up precisely because there is no anticipation of new supply coming on board.

So sad. The nutcase "global warming" crowd are literally making some people sick!

I wish I could say that this is a joke. But it isn't. The global warming crowd is literally making some people sick. Some psychologists in Australia have recently noticed that there are some people who have become so engulfed in this global warming propaganda scheme that they are literally becoming sick over it! These people are starting to believe that their actions are causing the deaths of millions of people. This is a mental derangement because it not in keeping with reality. I almost have a hard time believing that some people quite literally become ill over their belief in global warming. Oh well, at least it is fun to poke fun and laugh at these folks.

Happy Independence Day!

Happy America's Independence Day! Today is a wonderful day to celebrate America. This is the best country in the world. We recommend that everyone, including and especially liberals, read the Declaration of Independence. It is posted below.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Proof that Democrats hate America.

Do Democrats hate America? Look at one YouTube video showing Democrat voters booing the national anthem. Also, some of these Democrats create a Nazi salute to the anthem, which suggests that they think that this nation is as bad as Nazi Germany. What insanity.

In Response to Environmental Extremist Letter Writers to the NY Times

I have long held that those on the left appear to suffer from some sort of derangement that paralyzes their mind. Liberals are unable to debate logically based upon scientific facts, historical experience, or economic reality. Instead, liberals have a tendency to debate using emotion (which is not logical or rational by its nature) or to argue based upon mysticism dressed up in the garb of environmentalism. Once such example of where liberals become quite deranged is on the issue of oil drilling. Liberals act like Superman does to kryptonite when discussions turn on whether America should begin to drill for oil.

I will show various examples from recent letters to the New York Times. For instance, letter writer, Paul R. Epstein, from Harvard Medical School, wrote, "Nature is saying stop, while Oil is saying go. Haven’t we learned? For so many reasons, it’s time to leave oil in the ground!"

Since I consider myself, as a human being, as part of nature, I would say that nature is not saying to leave oil in the ground, but rather, that we need more of it! The fact that so many of us humans, who depend upon oil for our high standard of living, are complaining about the high cost of oil shows that nature is not asking that it be "[left] in the ground." Of course, the letter writer was probably saying nature, that is, the non-human world, has been asking us to leave the oil in the ground. This is where liberals bring out their religious mysticism because they are "channeling" nature, stating what nature believes and feels. But nature itself is quite ambivalent about leaving oil in the Earth. Oil is a natural resource that has been waiting for industrious humans to use for our own consumption. Nature has not asked us to save the oil.

The next letter to the editor to the New York Times writes a very complicated argument against drilling by stating that it a) harms the planet, b) gasoline is going through the roof, and c) oil companies are making high profits, d) we should find alternative sources of energy. Here is the sentence in all of its glory:

"Let’s see: our entire planet is in danger because of the burning of fossil fuels, our economy is in the tank because of the rising cost of gasoline and diesel while the oil companies are announcing the biggest profits in the history of the planet, and we are going to open the oceans, our biggest source of both oxygen and food, to further offshore drilling. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?"

The non-genius who wrote this is a Judith Luber-Narod from Mass. Let's take each argument on its own. (Liberals have a tendency to throw a million arguments into one, with the hope that something will stick.)

To the argument that drilling "harms the planet".

The global warming movement is a propaganda movement whose purpose is to directly tax the industrial economies and to roll back the high standard of living in the West. The argument over man-made global warming is not over--despite the fact that liberals have said otherwise. The only reason liberals state that the debate is over is precisely because they do not want to have a debate. Just recently, 31,000 scientists have written in opposition to the view that humans are responsible for global warming.

Liberals, however, believe man-made global warming as a matter of faith, though. They do not care what the evidence is with regard to warming, but, rather like useful idiots, go along on the bandwagon because it makes them feel special to be part of this religious cult. That is why they drive around in those silly looking Prius cars.

To the argument that we should not drill because "gas prices are going through the roof" and "oil companies are making high profits":

• Oil companies are not making "high profits"--or even above-average profits. The reality is quite different. The oil industry, as a whole, makes about 9 cents profit for every dollar in revenue; in contrast, companies in the S&P (which is composed of 500 companies) average around 13 cents on the dollar in profit. In contrast, McDonald makes 16 cents on every dollar in revenue, Wells Fargo around 18 cents on the dollar, and and Google at 25 cents on the dollar. Yet no one has said that Google's profits are outrageous--even though it is more than double the average profits of the oil industry. (In fact, as a disclaimer, I do not invest in the oil industry precisely because the profits tend to be lower than average and also because of the potential adverse legislation that may be aimed at oil companies.)
• Further, drilling for more oil is precisely the method to lower the gas prices at the pump. It is a hard argument to make that we should not drill for oil precisely because gas prices are going through the roof. How is that logical?

To the argument that we should find alternative sources of energy:

The truth is that American companies are already investing in alternative energy resources. However, in the mean time, this does not preclude continuing to explore for the energy resource of today--which is oil--even while finding alternative energy sources. If there are alternative energy sources, private industry will find it and profit from it. The truth is, though, even many liberals realize that alternative energy is a scam. Billions of dollars have been spent on alternative energy, but nothing has been shown for it. Far better to use the money to explore for the proven energy of today--oil.

The Democrats caused these high gas prices. Contact Congress and urge them to fix this!

Are you tired of high oil prices? This is a classic economic question that can be solved by supply and demand. There is a high demand for oil worldwide, but the supply has been artificially limited in the United States due to the environmental lobby. This can change, though! You have the power to influence Congress and change the law. Here is a model letter that you can copy and paste and send it to your Member of Congress.

"As your constituent, I urge you to allow oil companies to drill in ANWR as well as the continental United States. The high oil prices exists because there is a limited supply of oil. If America stated that we will drill for oil all across our nation, the price of oil would drop, which would help consumers. I urge you to ignore the environmental lobby. There is no environmental harm that will arise from drilling for oil. Modern practices are very different from what they were decades ago, and there is no reason to continue the moratorium on oil drilling. As a result, I urge you to allow for oil drilling all across the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR, off the West and East coasts, as well as on federal land.
Drilling is the only solution that will lower the price of oil, and for that reason, I support drilling. This is a very important issue to me."

The time to drill for oil is now.

Americans looking at the high gas prices should start shifting their blame at the Democrats in power. World oil prices work based upon the classical economic idea of supply and demand. Democrats have chosen over the years to substantially reduce the supply of available oil in America by prohibiting oil exploration in the lower 48 states, as well in Alaska at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In America, there is roughly 50 billion barrels of oil -- just within the continental US! Recently, in North Dakota, over 200 billion barrels of oil has been located!

There is more than enough proof that oil prices do not have to be as high as they are now. The Democrats have allowed the radical environmentalists (who are similar to a religious cult) to dictate our energy policy. The time to drill is now. You do not have to suffer from high gas prices. Ask Congress to abolish these onerous rules on oil drilling.