Senator Obama the Conservative?

SENATOR MCCAIN

Senator McCain missed an opportunity. With the passage of this massive bailout package, Senator McCain missed an important opportunity to show the American people that he is good on his word. The Senator has been really big on stopping pork barrel spending. When the Congress passes a bill, in order to grease the wheels they back load it with tons of additional spending. To get the approval of their fellow senators/representatives, they throw in additional spending on frivolous programs. Senator McCain has made getting rid of pork a tenant of his campaign. To be true, Senator McCain hasn't over the course of his career requested any pork projects (compared to the $900 million that Senator Obama has requested over the first four years in the Senate). The opportunity he missed was that loaded into the bailout package was:

$223 Million for Alaskan Fisherman
$192 Million for Rum producers in Puerto Rico
$128 Million for auto racing
$33 Million for companies in the American Samoa
$6 Million for the producers of wooden arrows

If Senator McCain acted truthful to his promise of vetoing every bill with pork that comes across his desk, then he would have voted against it. He didn't. So we have to believe one of two things: either the Senator isn't really going to veto those bills, or he isn't trustworthy to follow through on his promise on that issue. I'm not sure what is better.

SENATOR OBAMA

If the wise thing to do is keep government small, keep their power limited, and be very skeptical about our leaders, I don't know how wise it would be to elect Senator Obama. If the Founders were right in asserting that the government that governs least, governs best, and God is correct in warning his people of the dangers of strong government, then I don't know if it would be smart to ignore them and vote for Obama. If we have any conservative blood left in our body, then I don't know how we could vote for the man. Let me explain.

ABORTION

Lets not debate the ethics of abortion right now. Instead, lets examine the Freedom of Choice Act that Senator Obama supports. This act would make it illegal for any state to pass any restriction on abortion. What that means is that no state could make partial birth abortion illegal (abortion up to the moment of birth, which does happen in this country). No state could pass laws regarding parental notification for minors. The Act would strip the states of all their rights in passing legislation in regards to abortion. Additionally, Senator Obama would re-instate federal funding for abortion. The Constitution granted the states every right that was not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the federal government any rights regarding restricting (or not restricting) abortion. To give them that right is a gross violation of the Constitution. Stripping states of their rights and giving them to the federal government is something totally foreign to the Founders.

MARRIAGE

Senator Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act passed by President Clinton in 1996. This Act re-inforces the state's right to not recognize another state's marriage laws. In action, that means if Colorado says a man can marry a goat, Nevada doesn't have to recognize that as a legal marriage. Senator Obama's opposition to this act means that every single state would have to recognize any marital relationship from any other state. Again, this strips the state's of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and sets a dangerous precedent for a movement towards a powerful federal government. Not just a powerful federal government, but one that is unrestricted by states power that was designed to counterbalance the federal power.

TAXES

Senator Obama advocates cutting taxes on the bottom 95% of wage earners in this country. Ignoring for a moment that 40% of those people pay no taxes at all to begin with, we still have to acknowledge that the top 5% already pay over 40% of federal income tax. The top 1% pay over 60% of federal income taxes. I realize that people don't like how 'unfair' it is that people make more money than they do (Paris Hilton, anyone?), but as an economic policy, taxing people who have more money does in no way put more money in our pockets. What it does is increase the power of the federal government, set a precedent of taxing the rich at insane rates, and move us toward a socialistic system rather than capitalistic. The idea that this would become acceptable is pretty mind boggling, considering that just 17 years ago we won a decades old war against a failed socialist state....why move closer to become what we defeated? The last time I looked, being the exact opposite of the Soviet Empire created the most powerful and prosperous country, with the best standard of living, this world has ever seen.

Furthermore, who do you work for? Where do you buy gas? Where is it you pick up your groceries? Who makes your clothes? Who owns your TV station? Even if you're not rich, raising taxes on the people who own these things that provide for our basic needs does not make our bills less expensive. Who in their honest opinion thinks that when the government raises Comcast's taxes, they just say "oh, bummer, looks like we're making less money this year"? That's ludicrous, from an economic standpoint. They pass that fee right on to you and me. It might hurt less when it happens to Comcast (we can always cancel that service), but it will hurt plenty when it happens to our food producers (not just the stores, but the suppliers). Big government thinks backwards on these issues. You don't create wealthy by taxing companies that create jobs. You create wealthy and jobs by letting our companies (both small and large) use their own money to expand their business.

ENERGY

Senator Obama wants to "fast track alternative fuels." I think everyone is for using renewable, alternative fuels. In two years, we have GM releasing the Chevy Volt. That car will get 40 miles on its battery after 6 hours of charging. Nice, but by no meant impressive, and it is the best we have. So, he wants to throw hundreds of billions into new research into solar, wind, geo-thermal, and other energies. Let's look at this further as well. First off, that is yours and my money. The idea that you take money from the private sector to give back to the private sector to encourage research into something that doesn't exist is a policy of a big and powerful government. Again, it sets a dangerous precedent. Secondly, who invented the car? Was it the government? Who invented flight? The President? Did the Wright brothers get $100 billion from the government to spur on their research? Today GM, which is drowning in debt, is using its own capital to research the next, best, greatest thing, in order to make money and expand their business. Likewise, so is Toyota, Honda, Ford, and every single other car maker. If the government throws $100 billion of your money at GM, would that make them discover a new technology any faster? The government can't throw enough money at the problem to solve it, there is way more money in the private sector than in the government. In fact, the government can't get money to begin with without taking from the private sector to begin with. Aren't we tired of seeing these huge spending programs crash and burn?

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

Senator Obama has called for supplying a $1,000 tax rebate to all Americans. What he hasn't telegraphed is that he is getting this money from taxing 'Big Oils' profits. This is very lain and simple redistribution of wealth, a tenant of socialism. Senator Obama has called this 'fair.' Fair is nice, but it isn't an economic policy. A socialist government can steal money from whomever it wants, but that doesn't encourage growth, and it certainly doesn't reduce your bill at the pump. Consider this: Big Oil, while making a ton of money, has a profit margin of 7%. Google has a profit margin of over 20%, as does Microsoft. The reason Big Oil makes so much money is because of how expensive oil is to begin with. If oil didn't cost so much, then they wouldn't make as much profit. Lowering the cost of oil will lower their profits, if that is your goal. But it shouldn't be the goal to begin with. The government makes more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do. For every gallon you spend, there is a 17 cent federal tax. Then, depending on where you live, you have a state tax ranging all the way up to another 68 cents.

A very large federal government is already screwing us when it comes to gas, much more than the oil companies are. If we taxed governments profit on oil instead of the oil company's profit, we could actually get an even larger refund than the one Senator Obama is promising. Either way, the Senator's plan is socialist in its core.

We cannot afford to put a man in the Oval Office who represents socialist principles. I cannot imagine how that would be a wise idea.

RESULTS

Big government has resulted in many failed policies. Social Security, Welfare, a War on Poverty, and many more. Not even to mention the fantastic failures of socialist principles throughout the world in the U.S.S.R., China, Vietnam and others.

The problem lies at the core: Senator Obama believes that the government can solve our problems. When we are presented with a problem, the answer is tax more. Another issue pops up? Create a new program. States want to do something we don't like? Take away the state's right and reserve it for the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson thought Alexander Hamilton was a traitor to his country. Why? He wanted to create the National Bank. He wanted the federal government to have a little more control over the country's finances. What would he think about the Bailout our congress just passed? What would he think about the feds taking control over defining marriage and abortion? What would the man who warned of the dangers of "mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" think of a politician gaining votes by promising to take money from others and give it to you?

If there is a conservative bone in our collective body, these are policies we cannot support. I don't believe that they are policies our Founders would support.

This election, we have been asked to embrace 'Change.' We could elect a monkey and that would constitute as 'change,' and that is not the point. The real question is, what should we change to? We have a candidate in Senator Obama who says, in his own words, that he is a product of the American dream, and yet told a ten year old that America isn't as good as it used to be. It is fair and just to ask what direction someone who thinks like that would like to take the country.

The people in Russia faced a populist push by Lenin during a very difficult time. The Italians faced the same opportunity to change things up with Mussolini. The Israelites yelled for change as well, and exchanged a governmental relationship with God for a human king. And the Germans, under post WW1 oppressive economic conditions, were promised change and a fight for the common man. Be sure: I don't bring these men up to compare Senator Obama to Lenin, Mussolini, or Hitler. I make reference to it to highlight the importance of making sure we realize what change is being peddled to us. Change for the sake of change isn't going to cut it.

If it did, we might as well elect a monkey.