About Me

Name: JA Walker
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

A victory! (of sorts)

Posted by JA Walker on Monday, November 10, 2008 8:33:44 PM
Sometime within 48 hours of my last post the "America Serves" page of the official website of "The Office of the President-elect" was changed to show the describe the plan as follows:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

This is quite an improvement over what was originally proposed although the goal that all middle school and high school students "do" 50 hours of community service still sounds as if it's a sentence for committing a crime. Maybe that is the punishment for not joining the Obama Youth?

Whether or not the "toning-down" of the program description is the result of public outcry or is simply the product of a rewrite of a staffer's draft we may not know for quite some time but, at least at the moment, it would appear to be one victory for the people over those who wish to "rule" them.

Now we need to turn our sights on some of the other 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It is autumn in America and the colors are changing

Posted by JA Walker on Friday, November 07, 2008 8:44:42 PM
Amendment XIII
to the
Constitution
of the 
United States of America

Section I. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

This amendment was ratified on 3 February 1870 after years of debate and a most un- civil war. This amendment is an important part of the document that outlines the framework for our federal government. This amendment, fought for by so many that gave so much, exists to ensure that no law-abiding citizen of the United States of America can be compelled into servitude without their consent.

On 7 November 2008, just three days days after the Presidential election, this appeared on a website outlining President-elect Obama's plans to fundamentally change our country:

America Serves
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. 

Now, read the paragraph above again paying close attention to the section referring to middle and high school students. This plan will require community service to be served by persons who have committed no crime. If you have read Amendment XIII then read President-elect Obama's "America Serves" initiative then you should be outraged. 

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office (whch includes the vow to "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" which includes amendment number XIII) on 20 January 2009 almost 139 years will have passed since ratification of the XIIIth amendment. Yet now, just three days after the election, the President-elect has outlined a plan that is in direct conflict with the constitution. 

Once again, promoting service to the community is a good thing. It is when that service is required that the problems begin. If President-elect Obama wants to encourage service to the community then he should inspire people to volunteer not enslave them with a social program designed to indoctrinate them.

Unfortunately for the American people, Barack Obama marketed himself as anything but a person with socialist beliefs. Many people may have taken him at his word and cast their vote for him. Now with each day that passes it appears more and more that the slick marketing of the Obama campaign was nothing more than a bait-and-switch scheme.

If you value the Constitution on which our government is based, if you value the freedoms that it provides then you must oppose this plan. We should not allow our youth to be compelled to serve in an "Obama Youth" program. 

Yes, it is autumn in America and the colors are changing. The question is...

When will we finally see what Barack Obama's true colors are?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Obama's socialist sandwich

Posted by JA Walker on Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:47:14 PM
"By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my -- I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich." - Barack Obama on the campaign trail, October 2008

Obamaciples from coast to coast devoured their great messiah's supposedly off-the-cuff (the way he stammered through it makes it likely that it was unscripted) remark. Yes, to imply that "sharing" is "bad" and that "sharing" is, in itself, socialist is, on the surface, ridiculous. What is absolutely insane, in retrospect, is that anyone lent any credibility to this idiotic comparison.

Just as with anything Obama-related we have not been given all of the information concerning this alleged sandwich-sharing incident. It is in the details that we do not have that the answer to the question of whether or not the sharing was socialist lies. You see, in order to answer the question we must know what initiated the sharage of sandwich... 

  • Did a benevolent young Barack willing donate a portion of said sandwich without outside influence? 
  • Did the young Barack part with the aforementioned morsel after it was suggested by someone else that it would be the right thing to do?
  • Was the young Barack compelled to surrender a portion of the bread-encased sustenance to another party by an authority figure?
Then Senator Obama's quip trivializes the concerns that had been raised about his views of wealth distribution. Barack Obama's stated views that the federal government should be actively involved in "wealth" (income) redistribution are, without a doubt, socialistic. There is no gray area.  This is not a debatable point. It is what it is or, as he would say, "It is... uh... um... It is what.. uh... um.. what it is."

When you, as an individual, decide on your own, without any outside coercion, to give something to someone, without expectation of anything in return, you are sharing. You are doing a good thing and you should go forth and rejoice in the knowledge that you have done a good deed. 

However, if someone else tells you that they are going to take something that you obtained through your own work from you and give it to someone else then that is socialism (or, better yet, let's call it what it is -- theft).

So, is sharing with those less fortunate bad? No, of course not. What is extremely bad is the way that President-elect Obama believes it should be shared. He believes that those who are hard-working and successful should be compelled to pay a disproportionate share of the federal bill. He believes that the tax structure should be manipulated in a way that would result in taking wealth (income) away from those who earned it in order to give it to those who did not. This, my friends, is socialism at its best. 

Over the past several years we have heard stories of homeowners that have lost the homes in which they have lived for many years to eminent domain. In many cases these land grabs have been for traditional purposes such as road construction. More and more we hear of property being taken from common citizens and then "given" to developers for commercial projects. This scenario draws public outcry each time it happens yet it is remarkably similar to what President-elect Obama wants to do on the federal level yet few people seem to care. In the eminent domain example property is taken from owners and given to someone else (a company) who could not otherwise obtain it (the owner(s) did not want to sell). In the "coming soon to your financial neighborhood" scheme of our next President it will be the IRS coming to your door to confiscate a larger portion of your income just to give it to someone who didn't earn it. 

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that those who possess monetary wealth should not give to others. I am simply saying that they should be encouraged to give voluntarily rather than being forced to using the tax code. President-elect Obama could have, should he have chosen to, used his national pulpit to inspire a culture of giving. He could have spoken of the rewards of giving to charitable organizations. Instead, he chose to use the class warfare his party so loves to drive a wedge between those he says he wants to unite. 

Make no mistake, Barack Obama's views are socialist in origin. He truly believes that the federal government should control as many aspects of its citizens lives as possible. He does not believe in encouraging personal responsibility. He does not believe in promoting success through work. He does not believe that the role of the government is to simply ensure that everyone has access to the playing field, he believes that the government should ensure that everyone has the same score. He has made this clear each time he has been given a chance to distance himself from his own statements. 

President-elect Obama's belief that the federal government should provide socially for it's citizens is one of the key areas that prohibit him from being a leader. A leader inspires greatness. A leader leads. A leader does not foster a welfare state in which the citizenry are told that mediocre work ethics and financial disciplines are acceptable while at the same time punishing the hard working, successful and financially responsible.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama has two faces

Posted by JA Walker on Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:38:37 PM
All through the Presidential campaign there were numerous examples of just how two-faced Barack Obama is...

There was the time he told one group of donors how primitive residents of a particular state are.
There was the time he told us that one of his closest mentors was simply misunderstood when he rails against his country.
There was the time he told us that he wants to work across the aisle even though he has never left the far left side of his party's side of the aisle.
Then there was the time that, well, you get the idea...

So, on the night of his election to the highest office in the last, President-elect Obama stood before his throng of supporters and told the country how important it would be for both sides to unite and work together. The following day word got out that his first staff pick is one of the most partisan, divisive figures that could have been selected. So, President-elect Obama has given us a clear signal of just how he intends to "unite" the country. 

Barack Obama has indicated by his first action that anyone who does not agree with him will be "beaten" into submitting to his will much like the Borg of Star Trek -- "You will be assimilated into the collective, resistance is futile." Once the inevitable surrender to Obamunism is complete the country or, rather, what is left of it will be united. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Irresponsible voter action

Posted by JA Walker on Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:09:52 PM
On Tuesday millions of Americans went to the polls to elect the next President of the United States. Unfortunately, many of those made poor choices for which we will all pay.

Many people cast their vote based solely on the race/skin color of one of the candidates. Those who cast their votes for a candidate other than Barack Obama simply because of his race/skin color should be ashamed of themselves. Equally shameful are those who cast their vote for him simply because of his race/skin color. 

Many people cast their vote simply because they accepted the bribes, in the form of promised giveaways, from the Obama/Biden campaign. Anyone who casts a vote for a candidate because of a promise of "freebies" should hang their head in shame.

Many people cast their vote for Senator Obama based on nothing more than a mindless mantra of "change" and a thoughtless, unimaginative chant of "four more years of Bush!" Anyone who would cast a vote for a politician based solely on campaign slogans and chants should be ashamed of themselves.

Many people cast their vote for Senator Obama because they see him as someone capable of "uniting" the country. 

Many people simply cast their vote for a third-party candidate or abstained from voting altogether simply because of Senator McCain's age, they didn't like some of the positions he has taken in the past, etc. While Senator McCain was far from being a "perfect" conservative candidate he was a much better choice for conservative values-based voters. Anyone who did not support Senator McCain simply because they could not see the contrast between him and Barack Obama should be ashamed of themselves.

In the coming months a harsh reality will begin to settle in on all of those voters...

Those who voted for Senator Obama based on his race will find their support was given to a candidate who, likely, shares few of their values.

Those who voted because of the giveaways promised during the campaign will find that few, if any, of the goodies ever arrive.

Those who voted for "change" are likely to find that the change delivered will be nothing like the change that was promised. They may also look back longingly wishing for four more years of Bush.

Those who failed to support Senator McCain because he was not a "perfect" conservative will be sorely disappointed when they find they are unable to run away from the environment they helped to create.

Those who believe that a candidate who campaigned on a divisive message of class warfare and envy and who has no record of ever opposing his party on any substantive matter will be very disappointed to find the country more divided than at any point in close to fifty years.

We should each make a conscious effort to ensure that every vote we cast is based on real issues rather than the color of a candidate's skin, their shallow campaign rhetoric and their empty promises. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should you sit out this election?

Posted by JA Walker on Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:41:16 PM
In just two days we will go to the polls. This election is, quite possibly, the most important of our time. The outcome will affect our lives and shape our country for the next forty to fifty years. The differences in the candidates is like night and day. Yet, with all that hangs in the balance, many have chosen to either go with the flow and vote for Senator Obama or, worse yet, abstain from casting a vote for either candidate. 

For an informed, values-driven citizen I believe that this election is far too important to stay on the sidelines. There is too much at stake yet to turn the tide will take active participation of all of us. 

Some of the important areas at stake are:
  • National security: Senator McCain has shown by his own example that the interests of the United States will be his priority. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has shown that he is more interested in a global society rather than ensuring that the United States maintains a leadership role. His desire is for our country to become, in essence, a state or province of the United Nations always placing our interests behind those of other nations should their be a conflict of the two. 
  • The economy: Senator McCain's record shows that he believes in spending restraint and a more streamlined form of government. He believes that federal taxes should not be punitive. Senator Obama believes in expanding the federal government and, with it, greatly expanding entitlement payments. He believes that the federal tax system should be used as a tool to level the economic field of the citizenry.
  • Social programs: Senator McCain promotes personal responsibility. He believes that people should be empowered to create their own success and should not be penalized for achieving success. Senator Obama wants to increase the federal government's role in the lives of all citizens. He has voiced his opinion that the courts should take a more active role in promoting social agendas. He believes that the courts should be encouraged to render ruling based not on law but on social ideologies even if they are at odds.
Specific issues are:
  • The war in Iraq: Senator McCain understands that successful completion of military operations in Iraq are crucial to creating and maintaining stability in the middle east. He understands that prematurely withdrawing will result in having to re-enter the theatre at a later time negating the gains already made. Senator McCain understands that the battle in which we are involved goes far beyond one man. Senator Obama wishes to end military operations regardless of the consequences and believes that capturing or eliminating one person will either end or substantially change the campaign against the terrorist forces we face.
  • Economic policies: Senator McCain understands that in order to keep or create jobs you must not penalize those who provide those jobs. He understands that if the prosperous are taxed excessively they will choose to limit their losses by not investing in the economy both monetarily and by expanding their workforce. Senator Obama believes that success should be punished by the confiscation and redistribution of income. He believes that by fiscally penalizing employers more jobs will be created.
  • Social policies: Senator McCain holds a basically conservative view of the constitutional authority of the federal government. He believes that legal decisions should be based on a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. He voiced his opinion that Roe vs. Wade was a flawed decision but has indicated that this issue would not be his sole determining factor in making nominations to the Supreme Court. Senator McCain believes that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Senator Obama believes that the court should be proactive in making law. He believes that the courts have not gone far enough in making social policies that have not been made by the legislative branch. He has been clear in his support of Roe vs. Wade and has indicated that protecting it will be of utmost importance in his nominations to the Supreme Court. Senator Obama believes that special consideration should be given to certain groups of people when rendering legal decisions.
The above are just some of the issues at stake Tuesday. All should be of importance to conservative voters but any one of them should be enough to show the importance of casting a vote. 

Will conservatives always agree with the decisions made by a President McCain? No, we will not. However, it is important to remember that we will be able to agree with most of them and there is the possibility to influence the decisions and policies of his administration. He has shown that he is at least willing to consider points of view that conflict with his own. 

On the other hand, conservatives should also remember that they will likely disagree with the vast majority of the policies of and decisions made by a President Obama. As a legislator Barack Obama has shown that he is not willing to entertain any points of view that are at odds with his own. He has taken any action that has been at odds with the leadership of his party. He has achieved a perfect rating from all groups supporting liberal social and economic agendas.

This election is about more than simply electing a President for the next four to eight years. This election is about ensuring that the values on which our country was founded are preserved. It is about rescuing our country's soul from those who would destroy it in their efforts to promote their own agendas.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is the US about to elect a spoiled brat?

Posted by JA Walker on Friday, October 31, 2008 11:32:00 PM
For months the tributes from the Obama followers have touted how "Presidential" his demeanor is. Oh, how calm and thoughtful he is. The world is so fortunate to have this wonderful human being who possesses an intellect far above any that have come before. Yes, we should not bother taking the time to cast a vote we should simply allow the on-air personalities of NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and, most likely, 98% of the entertainment community to select the one that they have chosen to lead us.

Events of the past week have shown Senators Obama and Biden to be perfectly capable of acting "non-Presidential" but they have shown that they can act quite like spoiled, childish brats. It is quite remarkable in itself that so many of the US voting population are quite ready to elect this duo based solely on empty rhetoric. What is simply unbelievable is that anyone would think that any politician who shows contempt for a private citizen or, for that matter, a member of the journalistic community who has simply asked them valid questions about their policy ideals is worthy to be elected to any office. 

Over the past three weeks the Obama/Biden campaign, backed by the Democratic National Committee machine, has done everything in their power to marginalize an ordinary citizen that dared asked their candidate a question. We have been told that his question was not important because of his status.

Senator Biden dismissed valid policy questions asked by a real journalist (a real journalist, for those who have forgotten what one is, is one who asks real questions rather than simply accepting the fertilizer being spread by the candidate and his surrogates). His seemed genuinely astounded that anyone would dare ask him a real question that would require him to defend the policies of his ticket. The outlet that conducted the interview was told later that they would, essentially, be excluded from any further interviews during the campaign. 

And just this morning we find that three newspapers were told that they would not longer be welcome on the Obama aircraft (are we supposed to call it Messiah One when he's on board?) during the final two days of the campaign. By some coincidence those three newspapers had each endorsed Senator McCain in the Presidential race.

There is a pattern of behavior from Senators Obama and Biden and their campaign. That pattern is that they are willing to do anything necessary to squelch the voices of any who dare question or disagree with them. Whenever something does not go their way they throw a tantrum do what they can to eliminate the perceived threat then blame someone else (Fox News Channel, the McCain campaign, etc.) for what their own shortcomings and arrogance caused. 

Yes, this duo is quite a winning team.. I would fully support them being named Brat-in-Chief and Vice-Brat -- Those are the only positions for which they have shown any ability to excel.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Which campaign is desperate?

Posted by JA Walker on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:34:43 PM
With only days until the election the Obama campaign has been dismissing any question of their policies as simple nothing more than desperate attempts by the McCain campaign to divert attention from their standing in the polls. A key Obama spokesman even went as far as to resurrect the old ("right wing") conspiracy defense when yet another Obama scandal broke (I wonder if he had to pay a royalty to Hillary Clinton to use that line since he didn't say "right wing"). 

It's only natural to expect the underdog to use all of the resources available to them in the closing days of their campaign. I think that the question to ask is...

Which campaign is really desperate?

On the surface you would think that the Obama campaign would be enjoying their lead in the polls. Turn on any national news program and you will be met with one of the Obama followers (should we call them Obamaciples?) gleefully telling you that the election is in the bag while repeating their ridiculous "change"chant and arranging for the delivery of the new drapes and carpet for the oval office. The Obama Kool-Aid brigade insists that their candidate will be victorious because no sane person would deny him their vote. 

The problem is that while the public face of the Obama campaign is busy declaring victory the behind-the-scenes workings of the campaign are busy trying to rally the troops. Urgent pleas have gone out for assistance in several battleground states. The candidate is encouraging people to skip work, school or any other commitment on election day to join his efforts. The candidate himself is airing a 30-minute infomercial this evening (when was the last time you saw an informercial product that was as good in reality as it looked on TV?). 

The polls have tightened significantly in the past several days. The next few days promise more of the same. The McCain campaign has been down but has been climbing of late. The Obama campaign has been losing ground in spite of having an almost endless supply of funds (guess that shows that large sums of money cannot totally compensate for an empty message). I would not hazard a guess as to what the outcome will be on Tuesday next but I still want to know..

Which campaign is desperate? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The dawn of a new era of corruption

Posted by JA Walker on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:07:39 PM
As November 4 draws closer each day brings news of a new scandal for the Obama/Biden campaign. The mantra chanted by the Democratic Party, from top to bottom, is change. One must wonder if the change promised will turnout to be what their supporters think it will be. 

In the past several weeks we have begun to learn of voter registration "irregularities" (most would say "fraud"), voting "irregularities" (ballots were completed so this would also be "fraud"), personal associations, plans to radically change the structure of our economic structure and, now, questionable fundraising activity.

  • In state after state investigations of ACORN are underway probing the practices used in registering voters.
  • Each week brings to light (although, if the media had it's way it would be candlelight so the details cannot be seen) a relationship of Senator Obama with a person of, at best, questionable character.
  • In Ohio several Obama supporters have asked to have their ballots returned to them after they admitted to having registered to vote in a state where they should not have.
  • We have learned that Senator Obama vigorously supports income (yes, it is your income that he wants to take away from you) redistribution. 
  • Now we know that a substantial portion of the Senator's record funds raised come from unknown sources. One report is that the campaign has intentionally disabled a key credit card security feature which matches the card to the cardholder's address. 
These activities are unethical and most contain at least an element that runs contrary to law. What voters need to note is that these are not isolated incidents. These are not activities of a small fragments of the Obama campaign. These are well orchestrated activities designed for the sole purpose of skewing election results in favor of a particular candidate. 

What should trouble Americans is that these activities have not been condemned by either the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Neither have taken steps to eliminate these activities. The silence from the Democrats on all questionable voting-related activities indicates that they are not interested in ensuring the integrity of the electoral system. Their silence not only implies their approval of the practices it implies that they encourage them.

Yes, if Senator Obama is successful in his quest for the Presidency there will be change. Unfortunately, the change will not be the utopian society many of Senator Obama's followers envision. The change appears to be the dawning of a new era of corruption.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The danger of making political decisions based on financial markets

Posted by JA Walker on Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:19:30 PM
In my last post I discussed how many people are reacting to news from the financial markets. I stated a case for the importance of not making rash financial decisions based on market fluctuations. Now let's consider a case for not making political decisions based on market fluctuations. 

We have been told repeatedly (mainly by operatives of the Democratic party) instability in the financial sector makes it impossible for a Republican President to be elected. Yes, these cheerleaders of America's misfortune are almost giddy from the euphoria that the dropped in the stock market has brought them. They are counting on the arrivals of third quarter 401(k) statements showing "losses" just days prior to the election driving more people to vote for their candidate. Yes, I'm sure that Jefferson and Jackson are both thrilled to see that their party has sunk to the level of rooting for American hardship just so that they can try to profit from it.

In my last essay I pointed-out how Joe needs to think about his future rather than being fixated on the present. The same principle applies to election issues. We should not be so fixated on the ebb and flow of the stock market that we lose sight of what may happen years in the future.

The nominee of the Democratic party to be be President of the United States is relying on voters to be so focused on today's economic ills that they do not see the larger issues looming on the horizon. Yes, today's finances are important but it is important to remember that a vote for Barack Obama today will not necessarily result in a solution. It will, however, open the door to changes in our society from which their will be no turning back.

Following are some of the things that I believe that all voters should consider when casting their vote...

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to place both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government under control of one party. His election would mean that there would be little, if anything, to stop his agenda from moving forward. There would be no check on his power.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both shown that they will gladly put their personal political and social agendas ahead of their duties to the country. Make not mistake about it, while Senator Obama has been trying to make himself sound like a centrist in his campaign rhetoric he is anything but. His views are solidly aligned with the far left of his party. Since Senator Obama has never once strayed from the agenda set by his party leadership it is unlikely that he would ever exercise veto authority on any bill sent to him by the Democratically controlled congress. If Barack Obama is elected President there would be no check on the power of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

It is very likely that two, if not three, Supreme Court nominations will be made within the next four years. If Barack Obama is elected President I would suspect that those nominations will come sooner rather than later. Senator Obama has been clear in his view that Justices should apply a very liberal philosophy when rendering their decisions. He has been clear in indicating that he has at least one litmus test for Justices. Nominees likely would be young which means that they could conceivably serve thirty to fifty years. Should Barack Obama be elected he promises to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States who would remove any possibility of limiting, let alone repealing, Roe v. Wade. A Democratically-controlled Senate means that there would be no check on the nominees to the Supreme Court.

In making a voting decision I believe that it is extremely important for anyone who believes that the political and social agendas of the far left of the Democratic Party are fundamentally wrong for the country needs to look past the current economic news, past their 401(k) statement and look at what a vote for Barack Obama promises to bring. The changes that he promises will not just steer the country to the left it will veer it sharply to the left with no chance of even holding it in the middle. These changes will not just affect us today but they will affect our children and their children for the next thirty to fifty years.

Yes, it is true that a President's term is only four years. Some people hold the view that the reigns should be turned-over to the Democrats so that the public can see what a mess they would create. The belief is that after two years of Democratically controlled Executive and Legislative branches a path back to a Republican majority would be blazed then two years after that a Republican President could be elected. 

The problem with this reasoning is that we cannot afford to have both branches controlled by the Democrats for even one day let alone two years. The damage that could be done in two years would take several decades to right. We cannot afford that kind of mistake. We should not put our descendants in the position of having to right the wrongs that we allowed to take place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is now the time to abandon the stock market?

Posted by JA Walker on Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:32:23 PM
The uncertainty of the the financial markets over the past several weeks has caused many reasonable people to make unreasonable financial decisions. These decisions have been spurred by a constant barrage of negative market news at every turn during the 24 hour per day news cycle. Further fueling the fires are the arrivals of third quarter 401(k) statements showing decreasing values. 

In the past week I have heard people bemoan the fact that their 401(k) accounts have shown "losses." More than one have, in desperation, decided to cease/suspend their contributions. Most of those people are a number of years away from retirement but each one has failed to understand what their current "losses" in account value mean or what their decision to stop their contributions will cost them in the future.

Over and over I have tried to explain to each that the value of their shares today has no bearing on what the value of their account will be when they retire and begin drawing funds. I have also emphasized that now, when the markets are down, is the worst time to stop contributing to a retirement savings account. 

It is often difficult for people to see a negative growth in account balances and not feel that they are throwing money away. It is hard to watch an account that may have been shown valued at $40000 three months ago now valued at only $30000 and not give into the urge to "stop the madness."

We do need to "stop the madness" but the "madness" that needs to stop is the one that says that our financial system is spiraling out of control and we need to get out of it before it bottoms-out. So, with that in mind, let's all pause, take a breath and think about how today's ills can work for us in the future.

Let's say that Joe has contributed to a 401(k) account containing a single mutual fund  for 10 years. Over those 10 years he has purchased 1000 shares. Regardless of the value of those shares he owns the same 1000 shares. If, today, his mutual fund is valued at $40 per share then his 401(k) is valued at $40000 (1000 share times $40). If tomorrow the price of one share drops to $20 then Joe's 401(k) account will be valued at $20000 (one half of today's value). 

Seeing that kind of "negative return" on a financial statement is tough but Joe needs to keep a couple of things in mind:

  • Because the trading price has dropped by half Joe can buy more shares for the same money.
  • Joe is nowhere near being ready to retire. Barring unforeseen circumstances Joe is not planning to make any withdrawals from his 401(k) for many years. 

Both of these points are important to remember because they will both help Joe in the future as long as he doesn't do anything rash today. The ability to buy more shares for less money when the market is down means that Joe will own more shares of his fund when he is ready to retire. 

The stock market is fluid. The values of stocks go up and down over time. History shows us that over the long term most stocks increase in value. Today's decline in value will likely be forgotten in five or ten years. The important thing for Joe to remember is that he has increased buying power today that he needs to use. If he takes advantage of that power then the value of his account will rise as the market recovers.

Why is this important today? Well, stay tuned for the next part...

Please remember, I am not an economist I am simply attempting to explain a couple of economic principles in layman's terms.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paying to register voters?

Posted by JA Walker on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:36:59 PM
Voter registration controversies. The past several weeks have brought news of voter registration "irregularities" in more than a dozen states. We have heard of "workers" being paid to register people to vote. We have heard of "workers" being paid to register voters then falsifying the applications. We have heard of "workers" "incentivizing" people to register, some of them multiple times. The question is why are these groups allowed to operate in this manner?

When confronted with the facts these pay-per-voter or pay-for-registration outfits try to either shift the blame to the election officials (all we do is turn in the applications, it's up to the registrar to verify/authenticate them) or they feign innocence by claiming that their "workers" defrauded them.

To my knowledge any US citizen can register to vote free of charge. There are volunteer voter registration groups operating in all 50 states who are more than happy to register eligible voters with nothing in return but the knowledge that they are participating in the electoral process. 

Why do we allow groups to pay people to do what can be better done free of charge? Why do we allow our electoral system to be tainted by organizations who operate in a manner that invites scandal? Why do we allow taxpayer monies to be used to fund these groups?

In this age of "change" and "reform" we need to examine our electoral process. We need to all we can to eliminate the groups that engage in questionable voter registration activity. We need to make it impossible for people to be compensated for registering to vote or for registering people to vote. If a group engages in questionable voter registration activity then they should face stiff penalties (fines, etc.). If they enjoy tax exempt status they should also lose that status.

Unless we are able to take control of our electoral system and restore and restore some common sense to it then it will continue to deteriorate to the point that what integrity it has will be lost.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax windfall profits? Spread the wealth around? Sure, let's do it.

Posted by JA Walker on Friday, October 24, 2008 6:46:14 PM
In recent weeks we have been told that oil companies need to have their profit taxed away. We've been told that it's time to be patriotic and pay higher taxes. We've been told that we need to spread the wealth around. At first I was resistant to these ideas as they run contrary to any common-sense view of how our economic system works. Well, I must say that as the weather has cooled I have begun to warm to the idea. 

So, with that in mind, I say let's do it and let's start at the top...

Let's start with our elected federal officeholders. I suggest that we allow each of our elected officials to receive an annual total  compensation package of not more than thirty to thirty five thousand dollars. Anything and everything exceeding this amount (whether it be monetary, gifts, trips, etc.) would be surrendered to the federal treasury who would divide the funds equally among all US citizens once per year.

Yes, let's redistribute the wealth of those who want to take away the wealth of those for whom they work! Granted, $35000.00 is more than many of their constituents earn in a year. Granted, the elected federal officials do not provide enough real work for their constituents to justify paying them that much. 

Maybe, just maybe, if we take away the welfare checks (their federal salaries) and all of the public assistance funding (fees for speeches, fact-finding tours, fund raising dinners, etc.) that they receive then they just might decide that working for a living is not such a bad thing.

So, if they want to spread the wealth around let's start with them and see how they like having their wealth confiscated.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He just doesn't get it

Posted by JA Walker on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 5:54:20 AM
Throughout his campaign Senator Obama has made it a point of repeating the undisputed fact that Iraq was not responsible for the attack on the United States on 11 September 2001. He goes on to say that under his administration he would refocus military attention on bin Laden. The man appears to be so naive that he believes that by eliminating one man the dynamics of the war on terror would change. Reality, however, is quite different.

The enemy we face would hardly blink if their leader were to be eliminated. The structure of their organization makes it almost irrelevant whether ObL or any of his associates are removed from the equation. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization fighting a guerrilla style war. This is not a military organization with a centralized command structure as would be faced if the enemy were a nation-state. 

We have seen in the past that removal of one leader in this organization results in only a temporary, at best, disruption in the command & control structure. Commanders killed or captured are quickly replaced by their lieutenants and their operation continues. 

I understand that some of reasoning for Senator Obama making his statements about capturing/killing ObL are him simply preaching to his choir most of whom share his overly simplistic view of foreign policy. They are at least somewhat inclined to believe that the war on terror is the result of United States policy. They believe that the hatred for the freedoms of our society is our fault. They are somewhat likely to believe that the conflict would diminish, if not end, if the United States would only withdraw from its leadership position (this is the put America last movement). 

In reality, capturing or killing ObL would have little, if any, effect on the war on terror. His role in the operations of his organization has been marginalized effectively rendering him irrelevant in planning operations leaving him as, simply, a cheerleader on the sidelines. 

Once again, Senator Obama tries to make himself appear thoughtful, intelligent or insightful by telling people what he believes they want to hear. The problem is that he just does not get it. He does not seem to understand that the war on terror can only be one by disrupting operations where they are found (and they are worldwide, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan) and by stopping the indoctrination of young people with the hatred that fuels Al-Queda.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The great Barack Obama vending machine

Posted by JA Walker on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:52:25 PM
In tonight's Presidential debate Senator Obama (waiting for the applause from the network anchors to end) once again peddled his view that the federal government is just a big vending machine that has no coin/cash/credit card slot. All you need to do is walk up to it make your selection and you get it free!!! Yes, Americans, everything will be free under an Obama administration (or should that be regime??). 

  • Want health insurance (he just said it is a right!!)? Here it is, it's free! 
  • Want to buy a new not yet designed or in production alternative fuel vehicle? Here it is, we'll give you a tax credit that won't cost you a penny!
  • Bought too many things on 90 days same as cash or spent too much on a house you couldn't afford? No problem, we'll get that debt down for you and it won't cost you a thing!
  • Want that new HDTV but don't have the money? We'll get it for you and we'll see to it that the government pays for it! 
(OK, maybe that last one is a little extreme now but it won't be under good ol' uncle Barak! Yes, he can!!)

Where do the disciples of this pied piper think that the money to pay for all of the candy he wants to give away is going to come from? It is well past time for the American people to stop seeing the federal government as a big cash machine that just keeps on giving out money for every program under the sun. We need to get back to basics. We need to educate our masses that the role of the federal government was intended to be limited. 

We need to remember...
  • There is no "right" to health insurance (people commonly mistake this for health care -- you do not need to have health insurance coverage to receive health care) in the United States Constitution.
  • There is right to have the federal government bail us out when we've made bad financial decisions. If I buy a house financing an amount far beyond my means to pay then I deserve to lose that house. It was my decision to apply for and accept the terms of that loan.
  • The federal government should not take action that would result in fuel prices being kept artificially high in order to "encourage" people to switch to an alternative fuel vehicle. By offering a "tax credit" to purchase a new vehicle the government is practicing bait and switch -- Basically they're saying "Look, we know we need to provide our own oil but we don't want to do that we want you to buy a new vehicle that uses (whatever fuel/energy source) so we'll give you an $$$ tax credit if you buy one." They are forcing you into an auto loan that you may not need/want/afford by trying to make you feel "good" about it.
  • Nothing is free. Nothing, zip, nada, nien. Everything must  be paid for by someone. When it is a business those things are paid for by that businesses customers. When it is the federal government they are paid for by the taxpayers! That feeling you get when you're near a campaigning politician is their hand in your pocket! 
All of these things that you clamor for candidates to "give" you must be paid for and they will be paid for by you! The American people need to wake up, stop going around with their hands out looking for money/programs/etc. from the federal government and start doing for themselves! 

One other thing that caught my attention was a reference to economic examples needing to start in Washington. This is absolute bull! We need public figures that practice tough love for the public. We need for people to be told that they should control their spending first. If you don't have the money to pay for something then you don't buy it! You save your money until you have enough to pay for it! 

We expect everything to be instant. Every day we see commercials for furniture sales touting "no interest for 18 months!" Need an appliance? We will give it to you for 90 days same-as-cash! We need to stop overspending and live within our means. There is no "right" to credit. If you establish a credit history that is less than ideal then that is your responsibility. If you borrow/finance more than you can afford then that is also your responsibility and you should not ask someone else to bail you out.

Barack Obama and his choir of many are correct. There need to be fundamental changes in our country. Those changes need to be in the government  and the culture/society. The changes that are needed, the changes that can be believed-in, will not come from an Obama administration. These changes  must come from the people. The changes we need would result in the people being empowered and that is not what Barack Obama wants. Barack Obama wants the American people to be dependent upon the federal government. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »