The Founding Fathers On Redistribution

We just finished the constitution and the Founding Fathers, While reading some quotes from them I came upon this list from them about wealth distribution. I'm sure my History Professor would get a kick out of this.


“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

But maybe they were wrong and Mr. Obama is right. After all, he is a Constitutional scholar.

ABC News: Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

A great editorial by columnist Michael Malone on the clear bias in the news coverage of the election. We should send this to all media editors and see if they respond. Probably not. Also note that while your reading the piece on media bias, notice the "Vote Obama" banner to the right of the artical.

ABC News: Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

5 Question Quiz

With the coronation of Lord High Barack Obama just a few weeks away, let me clear one thing up. I am not a supporter of Barak Obama. I’m sure that is not news to anyone who knows me. When expressing my discuss of the situation, I was advised to "Calm down, you may like what he does the next 4 years." Ahh no. Everyone is so into this “Next step in History”, that they are willing to send America down a path it may not be able to recover from. Let me explain that last statement. When you attack the ideals that made this country what it is, you risk losing it altogether. Everyone is so focused on “Change”, were about to elect someone into the highest office in the land with no experience, a shady background and a Socialists agenda. When you go to vote on November 4th ask yourself these questions.

1. Are you ready to have our military laughed at and mocked when we run out of Iraq with are tails between or legs?
2. Are you ready to roll back the Patriot Act that has kept us safe for the last 8 years?
3. Are you ready to have the Government owning our homes, controlling our healthcare , running our banks and controlling the free market?
4. Are you ready to stifle economic and job growth by taxing those who provide the jobs?
5. Are you ready for more than a Trillion dollars worth of spending in the next 4 years?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you will vote for Obama. If you answered no then you need to do whatever legally possible to make sure John Mc Cain gets elected. He may not be the best person for the job, but he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’

The Obama finally tells the truth about his tax and economic plan for America. Income Distribution!

Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.
Obama made the remark after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Wealth
by luvnews

The Media Play The Race Card For Obama

Image via Wikipedia
The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn’t leading in polls by a wide margin “doesn’t make sense ... unless it’s race,” says CNN’s Jack Cafferty. Slate’s Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the “color of his skin.”

Many journalists are so committed to the racism-explains-everything line they are labeling any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to “viciously exacerbate” America’s “race-fueled angst,” in the words of one New York magazine writer. For example, a McCain ad noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time’s Karen Tumulty gasped that because Raines is black, McCain is playing the race card. Why, she wants to know, didn’t McCain attack Obama’s even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae chairman, Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama’s vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? “One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black,” Tumulty suggests. Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its next ad, which is what happened. According to critics, McCain’s “celebrity” ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America’s fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood.

You’d think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity. This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people - and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama’s lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view. Similarly, McCain’s experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing. Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we’re a nation of “Bull” Connors. Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles’ black mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor.

Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him. I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters’ fear of appearing racist. There’s no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are racists. But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. If voters don’t keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work. The media’s obsession with race in this election is probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only makes non-racist people embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain. Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren’t voting for the Democratic nominee because they’re Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton’s primary voters. According to the pollsters’ statistical modeling, support for Obama may be as much as 6 percentage points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I’m skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here’s the richest irony of all: Obama’s problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can’t openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist. If the media were more objective, we’d be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party. (Imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!) But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines “racist” as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.
By Jonah GoldbergReprinted with permission from National Review Online.