As Barack Obama prepares for his move to the White House, America would do well to remember his “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe. It will be very interesting to see if he truly will govern with this socialistic (vs. capitalistic) mindset. For some mysterious reason, it seems that much of America doesn’t understand the devastating effects this mindset could have on our way of life. A great lesson from American history will help illustrate what I mean.

     As the early American settlers began to establish their communities, there was, of course, a desire to provide for the needs of each person, in spite of less-than-adequate harvests. In the early days of the settlement, a form of SOCIALISM was established in the colonies in which the profits and benefits achieved by the trade and work of everyone were placed in a common storehouse of the colony. All of the members of the colony then shared in all that was in the common stock. In other words, a person was to put into the common supply shed all he could and take out only what he needed. Socialism in a simplified nutshell.

     At first glance, this system may seem to be a very caring, efficient way to provide for everyone. The reality was that it failed miserably! Instead of taking care of the needs of the colonists, the system led to famine and starvation. Why? Because people aren’t wired to work hard to produce goods, only to be forced to give the goods away. Giving, sharing, and taking care of others are borne out of desire, gratefulness, and compassion, not government mandates. In the midst of this social experiment, William Bradford, the governor of the colony, wrote that the men who were most able, fit, and willing to work hard complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” It wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to help others—it was that they were tired of working hard and being forced to share the products of their hard work with a family led by a lazy provider. Bradford noted that the strong men who worked diligently began to realize they had “no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak.” This led to a refusal by the strong to work as hard, which in turn led to a great shortage of food.

     In 1623, Bradford recognized the utter failure of this system and decided that each household should be given a parcel of land. Each family could keep what they produced or trade it as they wished. In short, capitalism and a free market were instituted. The result was that the colonies thrived. In Governor Bradford’s words, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been….” History shows that this story was reproduced in many of the early American colonies.

     The principle is so clear: Allowing people to reap the natural benefits of their labor is all the incentive needed for most people to work hard, to succeed, to prosper, to achieve great things for themselves and their families. Society will flourish in that environment, and in that thriving society, the general goodness of people will emerge by choice, not by mandate. The truly less fortunate and needy will be taken care of by the hardworking able.

     This principle has so many applications and far-reaching implications. In a society governed by free market and choice, government regulations on businesses are, for the most part, not needed. Welfare mandated by the state is eliminated, or limited to mostly short-term help for more extreme situations. A minimum wage set by the government is unnecessary because the market will reward those who work hard.

     This may seem like an over-simplification of basic economics, but I believe very deeply in the freedom of the individual. In this freedom, individuals have the opportunity to branch out, stretch themselves, succeed and fail, learn and grow from their failures, and achieve extraordinary things. When a society is full of these types of individuals, working hard to better themselves, the direct effect is the betterment of the society as a whole. America to be great, people need to be left alone to thrive, and in their success, America will thrive.

     The causes of the current economic problems are many and a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this little piece. But one thing is certain: they are not a result of the government failing to get more involved in the financial issues of the American worker. I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but our own history gives a pretty clear indication that more government involvement in our lives is not the answer.

     Please see our website for more on this and other conservative issues: www.just2simpleguys.com.

I understand much of America’s attraction to Barack Obama. He’s likeable, very well spoken, and he pledges to lead a very generous federal government. But would an Obama presidency be good for America?

I have thought long and hard about this upcoming presidential election. I’ve spent many hours the past few weeks studying Barack Obama’s beliefs and convictions, analyzing his own words and actions. I have come to one crystal clear conclusion: there is no way I can vote for Barack Obama. I’d like to tell you why.

HIS ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY & HIS TAX PLAN

There is so much confusing rhetoric floating around about who will lower taxes more and whose plan is best. But all the confusion faded into clarity last week with Senator Obama’s answer to the now-famous JOE THE PLUMBER. Joe has done America a great favor—he’s brought out the real Barack Obama in his own words: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everyone who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too…. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That comment is so offensive in a free market society and so revealing about Senator Obama’s misunderstanding of our economic system. It screams of socialism, a system in which the government basically decides who makes too much money then takes some of that hard-earned income and gives it to others who make less—redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.

Senator Obama provided further insight into his philosophy with his scrambling the next few days to undermine what Joe the Plumber had revealed. I was appalled by the sarcasm in Obama’s voice as he stated, “How many plumbers you know making a quarter of a million dollars a year?” How can he hope to be an effective president when he mocks those trying to succeed? I don’t want a president who drips with seeming disdain at the thought of a blue collar worker climbing the ladder of success that so many of us aspire to climb. I want a president who, shown by his words and actions when things aren’t scripted, believes that anyone can make it big—blue collar, white collar, plumber, painter, computer tech, whoever.

And the whole concept that increasing taxes and tax rates on the wealthy is good for the lower and middle class, and for the economy as a whole, is simply illogical and plain wrong. The Reagan tax cuts in the 80’s and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 greatly fueled the economy. Given our current difficult economic situation, many economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn would only make the situation worse.

Please carefully read these words from his website: “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.” That statement should send socialistic shivers down your spine. This is not what America is.

Approximately 35-40% of American workers pay no federal income tax. So, the $500/$1000 tax credit Obama promises will basically be a “free” gift from the government. But it’s not free—someone has to pay for it and I’m offended by the fact that the someone will most likely include me. Obama wants to take from the hard-working rich and give it away to those who have less. It’s so important to realize that the poor do not grow their wealth through handouts from the government—they grow their wealth more effectively when the government gets out of the way, lowers taxes across the board, and allows the economy to thrive.

In regard to his plan to raise taxes on only wealthier business owners, whether it’s a small business or a big business, where will these business owners get the money to pay for this increase? Many of those businesses are going to have to get that money by cutting jobs, raising prices, cutting wages on the middle and lower class workers. Once again, tax increases across the board are a bad idea. Lowering tax rates across the board is what motivates Americans to invest in new business, expand existing business, hire more employees (resulting in lower unemployment), buy goods. Barack Obama’s plan works against all of these things.

Obama’s list of giveaways he wants the government to provide Americans, at taxpayers’ expense, reads like a Christmas list. From doubling funding for after-school programs and federal public transportation to bailing out struggling state economies to providing universal health care, I am absolutely convinced there is no way he can pay for all of these presents in the long run with only the tax increases he’s talking about now. Eventually, this government is going to get so big it will drive our economy into the ground. And apart from the cost of these giveaways, I’m insulted by his plan because he seems to think that Americans can’t figure life out for themselves—we need big daddy government to take care of us. It’s almost as if he looks around at the problems in America and decides that individuals, with the power of our free market behind us, can’t figure out the solutions, so Uncle Sam, at our expense, has to jump in and save the day.

MY OTHER ISSUES WITH BARACK OBAMA

So many other things Senator Obama has said, done, and posted on his website lead me to believe he would be a very poor choice to lead this country:

• As gas prices soared this past summer, Obama stood firm in his stand to not support offshore drilling or drilling in the ANWR province of Alaska. One of his answers to the energy problem was to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. What sense does it make to try to ease the burden of the consumers of a commodity by imposing a higher tax on the very companies that are providing the commodity?
• Obama has stated opposition to both the ban on Partial Birth Abortion and to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He has also consistently voted against laws requiring parental notification for an abortion.
• There is a consistent theme in Barack Obama’s life that he associates with far too many people who either hold anti-American sentiments or are downright unethical. I truly believe that a person’s actions and, in large part, the people he associates with, say more about his character and beliefs than his words. From William Ayers, a proven domestic terrorist with very radical views of America and education, to ACORN, an organization that has spent decades undermining capitalism and self-reliance, to Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years who equates some of America’s actions with the actions of al Qaeda, Barack Obama has chosen to align himself with very questionable views of America.
• Obama refuses to acknowledge that our presence in Iraq has played a significant role in the safety of America and of much of the world.
• With his radical views on America’s economy, abortion, immigration, education, etc., what kind of judges would he nominate to fill the Appellate and Supreme Court positions that will undoubtedly be vacated in the next four years?

I have many other concerns about the policies and practices of Barack Obama, but space is limited here to detail them all. I do encourage you to visit my website (www.just2simpleguys.com) to read a much more detailed piece on this topic. There is an incredibly important election in a little over a week. I hope you will take the time to investigate the candidates. John McCain is not a perfect choice, but he is a good one and I am throwing my support his way. I believe deep in my heart that Barack Obama would be the wrong man to occupy the office of the leader of the free world.

  There’s a great dialogue in “National Treasure 2” between the president and Ben Gates, the role played by Nicholas Cage. Gates mentions to the president that he believes him to be an honorable man. The president says to him, “Gates, people don’t believe that stuff anymore.” Gates gives a simple answer that strikes at the core of the America I believe in: “They want to believe it.”

 Deep in my heart, I trust that most Americans – liberal, conservative, libertarian, undecided – truly desire a leader with honor, courage, integrity, and deep patriotism. Most of us want to look up to a leader with diehard convictions who stands for those convictions at all costs and doesn’t waffle in doubt and indecision; a leader who has taken the time to wrestle with the tough issues and who has resolved those issues in his or her heart; a leader who understands what it means to be an American and who appreciates the incredible blessing it is to live in this great nation; a leader who instills this patriotic hope in his fellow-citizens and who reminds us often of the amazing sacrifice that so many paid to secure this freedom.

 Permit me one more movie quote: in “Braveheart,” William Wallace says to the Nobleman, Robert, “Men don’t follow titles, they follow courage….if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you…” A bit sappy, I know, but with that kind of leader occupying the office of the most powerful position in the world, I believe so many more in America would begin to better understand the importance of the Constitution. They would see the value of maintaining a limited government that is not involved in arenas they were never designed to enter. They would better grasp the concept of the courts interpreting, not legislating. They would demand an immigration system that requires legality and accountability, not permissiveness.

 President Bush has done a great job of protecting our country and a good job at many other things. And sure, whatever the outcome of the November elections, America can survive, and even thrive, without a great leader in the White House. But I, for one, wish for a leader I can look up to and one that I can trust to lead this country back to its conservative foundation. My great hope in 2008 is that John McCain will become that leader – and if not him, that soon, a great leader would step up to the plate, stand firm, and lead America forward in the truth of conservative values.

In light of all the hubbub in the news about illegal immigration, I’d like to throw out a crucial question:

SHOULD ALL LEGAL RESIDENTS BE REQUIRED TO SPEAK ENGLISH?

I believe the answer to this question is this: “Yes, yes, yes.” This “Yes” applies not just to citizens, but to all those who seek legal residence status here in America. They should also be required, as applicants for full citizenship are required, to learn some basic American history and be tested on various facts concerning our heritage. To ensure the strength, the unity, the character of our blessed country, we cannot continue to fill our communities with those who know, or care, little about who we are or where we have come from. The learning of our language is a large part of respecting and understanding who we are as a people.

In addition to the heritage and patriotism element of learning English, I’m very concerned about how much our country is spending on creating so much of our literature (menus, instruction manuals, signs, etc.) in two or more languages. I recognize that if a business wishes to be bilingual to accommodate its patrons, that’s all well and good. It makes a lot of sense in many areas to do this. However, when documents like drivers’ licenses are produced in two languages, at least a portion of the cost for this is being paid by taxpayers. For privately-produced documents and literature, the government absolutely needs to stay out of this and make no demands on a business or organization to produce bilingual materials or services.

Related to this, is it a good thing for our schools to require a second language to be learned by our students? Yes, I believe it is. It’s a healthy practice to be diverse in many areas of life, including language, but in too many instances in this arena, we have gone far beyond healthy. In the attempt to be compassionate and culturally diverse, we too often are bending over backward to conform to a culture that is not our own. This shouldn’t be confused with elitism or racism. Diversity is important; acceptance and openness are healthy; learning the ways of another culture is a good practice for all of us. But we must be careful not to lose who we are in the process. To continue to be the compassionate, giving, strong nation we have become, able to help the world in so many ways, we cannot lose who we are or forget where we have come from.

As I pointed out in my Patriotism post (and in my book, “Just 2 Simple Guys,”), doesn’t it make sense that it is our way of life that draws immigrants here in the first place? So why are we so often willing to change who and what we are to accommodate them?