Through the Looking Glass

Anyone paying attention to the current political scene must feel like Alice who went through the looking glass in one book and down the rabbit hole in another. In both books Alice encountered an alternate reality featuring bizarre and sometimes frightening things unheard of in her world. She found herself in this alternate world because she was bored and a rabbit wearing a coat ran by saying “I’m late, I’m late.” She followed him, even though she didn’t know where he was going or what path she would have to take to get to his destination – all because she wanted to do something different.

There can be times in each of our lives when it is appropriate to experience new and somewhat scary situations; doing so may provide a step to personal growth and an expansion of the box in which we normally live.

However, there are also some situations that we don’t need to experience. Some are obvious, like experimenting with illegal drugs. Others are not so obvious, but our gut feeling is that this situation isn’t one in which we need to be involved. That’s where we are with this election; some clues are obvious and others are more subtle – and we currently have a lot of Americans who are willing to follow a man on a path they have never experienced to a destination they don’t even know.

Barrack Obama has no experience to be president and what little history we know of him doesn’t point to a desirable path or destination. Yet people are flocking to him like he’s the shepherd and they are his mindless herd.

The polls show that the economy is driving people to Obama’s path, apparently believing that Obama can fix America’s financial crisis. The polls also show that Americans believe that republicans are more responsible for the economic problems than the democrats – shows you how uninformed many voters are, because the democrats bear the greatest portion of the blame of the current financial mess.

The fact is that Congressman Barney Franke and Senator Chris Dodd are democrats who are on the committee to oversee Fannie and Freddie, and both of them allowed Fannie and Freddie to collapse while they continually told the American people that Fannie and Freddie were stable. Both of them should be criminally charged – at the very least, their constituents should look at voting for their opponents.

It was democrat President Jimmy Carter who signed the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act into law. In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would "distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit."

In 1995, under democrat President Bill Clinton, the CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.

Recently, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks." In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.

All of the above was done by democrats or under democrat administrations. To be fair, the republicans in office at the time are guilty of not having a spine for allowing this kind of legislation. All of us are now paying for both parties ineptness. Still can’t figure out, though, why Americans think that Democrats can bail us out of our sinking economy – they certainly have no history of doing that.

The Nut Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree

One of the big clues that, like the proverbial elephant in the room, people are trying to ignore is Barack Obama’s involvement with the community organizing group ACORN. Just this week Nevada and Ohio have had voter fraud issues directly tied to local ACORN offices.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm

Obama has huge ties to ACORN; as John Fund, author of “Stealing Elections", stated, "Obama is marinated in ACORN.”

Obama has tried to downplay his ACORN involvement, as if it shouldn’t matter, yet he has donated approximately $800,000 of his campaign money to ACORN. He was hired by ACORN to train new inductees. Several of ACORN’s supervisors are alleged identity thieves (we’ll see if the mainstream media actually looks into that allegation). Interestingly, the voter fraud that has ACORN ties is mostly in voter swing states.

Why would Americans ignore Obama’s ACORN ties? ACORN has helped groom Obama’s politics, thus making a further analysis essential.

Obama continually states that he wants to re-distribute wealth (which is a socialist agenda), giving tax breaks to 95% of Americans while giving the majority of the tax burden to businesses who make more than $250,000. If this really happens, we can say good-bye to capitalism and hello to socialism.

First, only 70% of Americans actually pay income tax, so how are the other 25% going to receive a tax break? Second, businesses will lay-off employees or cut wages in order to meet their tax obligations – and that’s only if they don’t completely give up and shut their doors. Third, Obama is lying to you. There is no way he can implement all his proposed social entitlement programs without raising all of our taxes.

Senator Obama told Bill O’Reilly during an interview that helping each other with increased taxes is the neighborly thing to do. Senator Joe Biden said that paying more taxes is patriotic. Neither senator is very conversant with the bible or the constitution to utter such nonsense. Yes, we need to take care of each other and, yes, that requires each of us to give up some of our money or goods to give to those who don’t have it. But nowhere in the Bible does it state that we should give it to the government to re-distribute for us. On the contrary, it is lazy and mindless to allow the government to be our bank for charitable programs. After they pay their overhead and take their share of our “charitable donations” how much will actually be left for the poor? If we want to give to a homeless person or to a charitable organization, then it is our right and duty to handle that process ourselves. By doing that, we can give 100% to charity and cut out the red tape and paperwork that the government will require. Additionally, government programs disconnect us from each other. The government takes our money and we never have to be involved. It also doesn’t help us feel like we’re helping our brother or being involved in a solution. The best way to disconnect with our problems and reconnect with others is by being involved in the offered service.

Lastly, charity should never be forced. Again, nowhere in the bible does it say that we have no choice in what we do. The bible actually says “choose ye this day whom ye will serve…”. If Jesus’ mission were to force us to His will, then He would never have given us the choice to follow Him. Hmmm… the government could learn something from this lesson.

Let’s hope that Americans wake up before election day. Otherwise, we may be tempted to follow Alice through the looking glass. An alternate reality is starting to look good.

(some of the above information was taken from Wikipedia)