1inchrist

I voted for George Bush twice. I am a conservative, and I knew he wasn’t. He is (or at least, was) a moderate. Several years ago, Karl Rove said he had a plan to destroy the Democrat Party. I think he (or Bush) ended up destroying the Republican Party instead.

Aside from President Bush’s tax cuts and the war on terror, there has been very little to cheer about. If it weren’t for the war on terror, many of Bush’s decisions would have drawn much more criticism within his own party.

President Bush (and the Republicans) pushed for Open Borders, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, The Prescription Drug Plan, Palestinian Statehood, The Mortgage Bailout, and even the auto industry Bailout. None of those are conservative principles.

We are told by the moderate wing and the intellectual elites of our party we have to do such things to get elected. Well, the evidence is in. We have a President Elect who has strong socialistic (i.e. communistic) ideas. He will have an overwhelming majority of support with Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.

So tell me, what was the benefit of adopting liberal policies? We got our bottoms kicked by abandoning conservative principles and enacting liberal policies, and many still believe that is what we need to do to win. Simply amazing.

The Economic crisis this fall has everyone in an uproar. The entire situation can be easily illustrated in a fairy tale: The investors on Wall Street have been dubbed the “villain”, the people in debt up to their eyeballs play the part of the “damsel in distress”, the valiant knight in shining armor? Congress of course.

There is a twist to this fairy tale that so many of us have accepted with child-like gullibility. In the name of “protecting” said damsel, the knight in shining armor decided to create money out of thin air and give it to a third party without any oversight. Meanwhile, the villain is being rescued and the damsel is still sitting in distress, believing blindly that by saving the villain she’s being protected. You see, the some of the knights are conspiring with the villains, their seven trillion dollar figure is spent and no one knows what for. Now, since the knight realizes he made a mistake, rather than stepping up to the plate, he’s proposing two more rescues with the same plan - throw money at the villain. Instead of doing his job and enforcing the law and letting the villains learn from their mistakes, he’s giving them even more money in hopes that they’ll stop making bad investments and can cover their tails - completely ignoring the long term effect this will have on the damsel…who unwittingly is still in distress.

The knight never realized that in creating money out of thin air, the dame he’s sworn to protect, is going to pay for every penny of his decisions. Prices will rise and the distressed damsel will have to pay more while still in debt because of her faulty decision. The solution, they will eventually realize, was not throwing money at the problem, it would have been better to let the villain face the consequences.

This, my friends, is the basic explanation of the economic crisis we are facing today. Throwing money at the problem is never the answer and only creates more damage in the long term. If we let the investors alone to fix their own problem, and we made the decision to be responsible, we wouldn’t be in this situation nor looking at the possibility of inflation. The market always has, and if left alone, always will correct itself, the answer is not money nor panic, the answer, for everyone, is responsibility.

A few years ago, I met Senator Saxby Chambliss at “meet and greet” barbecue for Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue. At the time, one of the big issues on the table was Border Security. I asked Senator Chambliss, why can’t the Republicans just pass a “Secure the Border First’ type bill (that would put a wall or fence on our borders) ? His answer disappointed me. He said, “because Harry Reid (Democrat minority lead at the time) won’t let us”.

I  thought  that was an incredibly weak response, but it was fairly consistent (the weakness that is) with the leadership of the Republican party. They had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for years and accomplished nothing – in terms of advancing Conservatism – the platform on which they run.

Just like his colleagues on the right, Senator Chambliss has become an appeaser and a compromiser with the liberal ideology of the left. His efforts in “The Gang of 10” virtually killed the momentum we had going in the energy debate. The tide was finally turning. Democrats were actually moving toward legitimate oil drilling in proven areas until the found ol’ Saxby and a few other “republicans”.

The gang of 10 effectively killed any chance of productive drilling by oil companies by forcing them to drill where there was no proven supply and burdened the oil companies with taxes and red tape. Saxby took the air right out of us on that one, and gave much needed cover for the left.

Several weeks ago, Senator Chambliss struck again. While purporting to be a “conservative”, Senator Chambliss voted in favor of the Bailout. This is the most grievous, socialistic takeover of our free markets and banks. Amid thousands of calls against it, Senator Chambliss assured us, this needed to be done to save our economy.

Really? Since then the market continues its free-fall. The banks aren’t lending. Credit is still tight and to top it off, the Treasury Secretary now tells us he knew the plan (that he sold to congress) wouldn’t work at the time they signed it!

I want to know how a simple electrician (and others like me) could see giving one man a trillion dollars with no oversight was not going to fix our problems, yet somehow Saxby and others in the Senate and House believed it was the only way?

Saxby betrayed his alleged conservative principles. He ignored the furious pleas of his constituency. He signed off on the biggest government takeover and nationalization of our mortgage / banking industry; while running for re-election in one of the most conservative states in the nation.

I am a conservative. I typically vote Republican ( even if I have to hold my nose) all the way down the ticket. I did not vote for Senator Chambliss in the General Election and I will not vote for him in the upcoming run-off.

Saxby is part of the problem. He (along with others) failed to push the conservative agenda forward when the Republicans had power because Harry Reid wouldn’t let him. He was an integral part of thwarting the best chance we had for energy independence in decades. His lack of judgment and betrayal of conservative principles in passing the bailout is the last straw.

I genuinely hope he loses. If he couldn’t lead when his party was in power and he sided with the left while in the minority; what confidence should we have that he will stand as the last ambassador of conservative principles in defending against a filibuster – proof Democrat senate?

The Republican party has strayed way off course. Saxby Chambliss has done the same. I’d rather have a chance to vote for a genuine, principled, conservative next time around (in the republican Primary) than vote for a Senator whose recent record bears little difference to that which would be expected of his Democrat rival.

Barack Obama says he wants to “spread the wealth” of higher income Americans to those less fortunate. He is a strong proponent of the liberal ideology known as the Redistribution of wealth… as long as it’s your wealth he is redistributing! Taking from someone, by the power of government, to give to someone else is not charitable, it’s punitive and it is the heart of socialism. That is not the hallmark of a “giver”, that is the hallmark of a Marxist / Communist.

While Barack Obama is heralded as a modern day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, he has held tightly to his own riches. While making around $350,000 per year ( “the rich” by his own definition) from 2000 - 2004, the Obama’s never gave more than one percent of their income to charity or those “less fortunate”. The most they gave one year was $3,500 (www.Huffingtonpost.com). That’s $100 to charity for every $10,000 he made. That is an embarrassment for someone as well off as Barack Obama, especially for someone whose image is that of guardian giver to the little guy.

In fairness, Barack Obama did increase his charitable donations as his Presidential aspirations began to come into view. In 2005, Senator Obama donated 4.7 percent of his income and in 2006, he gave 6.1 percent of his income to charities. According to www.usatoday.com , last year, after making more than $4.2 Million dollars (largely from book sales), Barack Obama and his wife gave a bit less (5.7%) of their income. Actually, Barack Obama has done very well under Bush’s economic policies, and “tax cuts for the rich”, I just wonder why he didn’t spread his own wealth around to those less fortunate?

We have learned recently that Barack Obama has a brother living in a hut in Kenya who makes twelve dollars a year. We also discovered he has an Aunt, whom he claims to have responsibility for (in his book “Dreams from My Father”), living in a slum in Boston Mass. Barack Obama has made millions over the last several years, and his closest relatives live in squalor. He says he is his brother’s keeper, he says he is his sister’s keeper, but apparently, he keeps them in poverty. Are we to believe that he cares more about us than his own family? Barack Obama is obviously not an apostle of generosity. His “hand outs” are legendary, only when they come from your pocket.

Barack Obama is no Robin Hood. The contrast coould not be more profound. Robin Hood stole from an overbearing, overtaxing, government - to give it back to the poor. Barack Obama wants to overtax all of us to finance his overbearing government.