Obama and Fair Share

President Obama and his minions keep using the phrase "everyone must pay their fair share". Then the question we must ask is, what is everyone's fair share? We know they keep attacking those who work hard for their wealth as not contributing to the public good. When in fact, we know those who make it in society with high incomes always bring others along either as employees, or creating income by their purchasing power to other businesses and the employees that business may hire. Their wealth filters down to the benefit of others. We also know that 49% of the workers do not pay taxes. So, can we say that those taxpayers who are enjoying all the benefits of living in this country are getting a free ride and not contributing? The answer to that according to Obama's rhetoric is yes. But instead we must criticize those who make it and are supporting government and society with their taxes as compared to those that do not pay taxes. Now we know that everyone contributes, but using the Obama thought process, that would not be the case. So, carrying that further using the Obama method, the 49% that do not pay are not contributing and must pay their fair share. Therefore, we must have a minimum tax that everyone must pay and I propose a minimum of 10%. Now I know that the Pelosi/Reid crowd will not agree to that, but we must have everyone pay their fair share and 49% are not. But Obama and his cronies who believe in a Marxist form of government would prefer saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)". That is basicly what Obama is really saying when he says, "fair share". He tries to hide his real ideology through rephrasing Karl Marx. God help us if he gets reelected.

The perfect candidate?

The perfect candidate does not exist that would meet the desires of everyone. Candidates come forward and either they don't meet the "party" standards, lack sufficient funding, or are rejected by primary voters. Some are rejected because the voter does not spend time and effort to research each candidate or they listen to the rhetoric of the opposition and make their decision. The establishment did not want Sarah Palin on the ticket last time around and we saw how it seems that party members were not putting out 100% in supporting her. The establishment usually gets their way, but not all the time. But like little spoil kids, if they don't get their way, they may make things difficult for the candidate. Staying in power is more important than winning the presidential election. They all suck and until we can gain control of the Republican party, or even the socialist party (democratic) we will be left with limited choices. Do we like it, I doubt it. But we must start from the bottom up. And with the news media against us, it will be a difficult fight, but we can win. So we can argue among ourselves over who we prefer, and as I said, none of the 4 remaining will ever meet what we are all looking for, but it still comes down to Anybody But Obama. Our constitution gives us the right to debate in any format and we must realize if Obama gets reelected, that may end also. This administration is doing their best to silent opposition by trying everything to get control on the internet and print media. Obama and his minions are the most dangerous people in this country and if he gets elected again, may God have mercy on us. In either case, we must make sure the democrats lose control of the Senate and the Republicans maintain control of the House. Then it will be up to the Republican leaders in both Houses to checkmate Obama. My only fear is they will not have the courage to stand up to him for fear of losing in the 2014 election. Like I said, for both parties it is all about keeping yourself, your party in power. If they really cared about this country, we would not have a $15 Trillion plus deficit. They all talk a good line, but their actions do not follow their words. Politicians have been promising for years that the tax code must be changed and simplified, but have we seen any movement to do it. Of course not. The present tax code can be used by politicians to write in some relief for their friends and big donors. A flat tax, or a more simple tax code would eliminate that power from their hands. And what politician after having that power would give it up willingly. ABO people.

The Catholic Church and Obama Administration

We have heard that the Catholic Church is denying women the right to access contraception by not allowing it on their insurance policies. Where in the U.S. Constitution is it written that this is a right when people do have access to contraception through their doctors writing them prescriptions. The Catholic Church is not denying anyone access. It is just that they will not go against their religious teachings and conscience by paying for this in insurance policies. Next, we hear that 98% of Catholic women already use contraception. Well, to paraphrase the words of Nancy Pelosi, "you must quote the survey before reading it". If one was to read this so called survey you will see that the survey only included females between ages 15 to 44. Now this would eliminate people who are not too old to have sex. This survey also excluded those who were pregnant, who obviously were not using contraception, those who were following the teaching of the Church, those who were trying to get pregnant to start a family, those who were having sex without any regard whether they do or do not get pregnant and it appears that 2 in 5 of those females surveyed were Catholic in name only and did not regularly attend church or follow Church teachings. So, when anyone claims 98% on any survey, this should send up a red flag and requires a better review of the survey facts By the way, the full survey can be found at: ttp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf