*********************************************PAGE ON VIETNAM AND DEMOCRATS .******************************************

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Who Are The Rich In America, Anyway?

Who are the rich in America? This is really a fascinating question because everyone on the left of the political spectrum, including all Democrat politicians, almost all journalists in the media, with the exception of Fox news, keep saying the rich must be taxed more than they are now in order to distribute the wealth. When it is brought out by conservative politicians and journalists (from Fox news) and conservative economists, further taxing of the rich would only bring in an extra few tens of billions dollars per year at most, it is not near enough, certainly, to pay off any part of our $16 trillion of debt.

Nonetheless, the left keeps bringing up the idea of taxing the rich. Either they are not very smart in dealing with finances or there is something else that they know of, but we don't because it is being hidden from us. Now let's see, going back to 2008 during the campaign for the presidency, Joe the plumber, in speaking with Obama, caused Obama to reveal part of the puzzle. Obama told Joe that it isn't fair for the rich to have all their money so that he intended to have that money evenly distributed among those who were not rich. Clearly Obama was talking about taxing the rich in order to distribute their wealth in such a way that everyone had an equal income. But wait a minute! If all the rich do not collectively have enough money to accomplish the redistribution Obama is talking about, then where does the money come from?

Later on during the campaign, Obama was asked who he thought the rich were. He gave a variety of answers in terms of people's income. I would've thought a rich person would be someone within income of that least of million dollars or so. But Obama started talking about $100,000, $150,000,  $200,000,  $250,000!  It became clear that to Obama, a rich person was a person who had an income substatially lower than $1 million or so. Obama was afraid of letting the cat out of the bag, it appeared to me, so he settled on $250,000.

It was only after I saw the film 2016, Obama's America, written and directed by Dinesh D"Souza, whose family in India supported his travel to America to receive an education when he was a young man. He appreciated the opportunity that he received in America and worked hard in educating himself to become an influential conservative writer.

This film portrays the life of Barack Obama before he became president of the United States. It reveals the important fact that Barack, in idolizing his father, a Kenyan, was determined to incorporate the beliefs from his father that the problems in the world today have been brought about by colonial powers such as Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland, which countries took over other less fortunate countries, exploited them by taking their mineral and oil resources among others, using these resources to manufacture goods which were then sold back to the people they had exploited.

Then when these colonial powers were forced to leave their exploited lands, people were left in poverty. This is certainly not true in every case. In many cases the countries colonized by these powers were better off in many ways than before. And if the countries were left in a poor state many times the colonial powers were forced out and civil wars brought devastation to the former colony.

It is sufficient to say for the purposes of this article than America itself was looked upon by Obama and the left as a colonial power. Although this is manifestly not true in the sense that if we did occupy a country it was not to colonize it, but to bring it to a better place than it had been. The Philippines after World War II, Japan after World War II, Germany after World War II, South Korea after the Korean War are examples of countries occupied by the United States after they were devastated by war but brought back to a state of independence, each having been able to play a major role in the economy of the world.

Obama and those on the left, the Democrats in Congress, those elites in the universities of the land, the journalists of the major media (exception Fox News) want to destroy America as they see it, a colonial power, which has selfishly ravaged other nations and peoples of the world. They plan, in turn, to destroy the economy of America as did George Soros, a billionaire, destroy the nations of Europe by destroying their economies and reducing them to socialist governments which decide everything for their people.

Obama then, like Soros, is a statist, a socialist, who sees America as a rich colonial power whose power must be destroyed by taxing the rich.  But it is said of America that we are a rich country!   Obama sees this as meaning practically everyone in America is rich, certainly compared to other peoples anywhere in the world. Then to Obama, who are the rich?  ALL OF US!  Think of it; all of us in America are rich!   Therefore it doesn't matter what your income is; it's going to be heavily taxed until you no longer can operate as an individual, as an entrepreneur in a business of your own, because you will not be able to pay the taxes.

So no matter what your income, you will be so heavily taxed that you will no longer be able to operate as an individual but only as a ward of the state and the state will provide you with what the state feels is appropriate; you will have no choice!

So there it is!  We are all rich no matter what our income and we all will be heavily taxed until we no longer can take care of ourselves because the state, the government, will take care of all of us. Until of course it all falls apart as it certainly will, like GREECE,  but that is in the future. a future for our  children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.   All wards of the state!

So when November 6 rolls around, think long and hard about whether you want to be part of a "new" America with the government taking care of you and telling you what to do, or do you want to be part of a government that recognizes your God-given rights, which allow you, as a free individual, the freedom to choose to take care of yourself and your family, while molding your own future and that of your descendants; a government, which out of a God-given sense of charity for the unfortunate, also has a safety net.  But for the young and eager who want to be the directors of their lives in the future and the future of their children, FREEDOM is the answer!

Think hard on this by November 6!  Do you want to be a ward of the state, a serf, a slave?  To live and die according a series of "5 year plans"?   Or do you want to be a freeman who chooses his or her own way, secure in the knowledge there is help not only from government but from private agencies as well, WHEN NEEDED?   Think hard and long on this!!  This is our only chance!

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Mr. Rasmussen, Redo Your Poll

What follows is a letter I write to Scott Rasmussen, who is a pollster well known for the accuracy of his polling.  After I saw the results of a poll he conducted that was mystifying, I thought it would be very enlightening to conduct a similar poll, but including an additional question as to why those interviewed in the poll responded to produce such a result.  

Having received no reply or redo of his original poll, it may be that Mr. Rasmussen does not think this important enough to redo this poll with that additional question.  As I see things, anytime potential voters display an apparent emotional response which, in the election, might affect their vote, it's worthwhile and important to reveal that emotion.  What do you think, after reading my letter below?

Mr. Rasmussen,

A recent poll you conducted reveals a large discrepancy between whom voters want to win in 2012 between Romney and Obama versus whom the same voters expect will win.  

Whom these voters expect will win results in Obama 53% and Romney 33%.  

Whom these same voters want to win results in a fairly even split between those for Obama and those for Romney.  

Following up the original questions with a question WHY voters voted in such a way as to produce such a lopsided result in the question of who is likely to win, might produce much needed enlightenment on the feelings of the electorate.

Phil Moore