It's Finally Time...

...to take the only poll that really matters - time to go vote! I am watching TV (FoxNews, not that CNN channel or, God forbid, MSNBC) and some of the polling places are experiencing long lines. I doubt that will be the case here in Paris, TX. But I could be wrong.

Those of you who know me know how I think, politically. If you don't know me...why are you even reading this? {grins} Anyway, McCain isn't my favorite candidate - but he far outshines Obama. My most basic beef against Obama are his economic policies. When the economy is tanking, when unemployment starts to rise, when GDP actually shrinks (not by much, but it is shrinking) - in that kind of situation you most definitely do NOT raise taxes, and you especially don't raise taxes on the upper income levels. That is akin to pouring water in our gasoline-powered economic engine.

Look at history. President Hoover did much the same thing as Obama promises to do back in the 1920s. Due to Hoover's(and the Congress) actions, most economists agree that what would have been a fairly bad recession was transformed into the Great Depression.

The Obama supporter would argue that stealing money (uhh, I mean taxing money) from those who have more and giving it to those who don't doesn't harm the economic engine. The recipients will spend the money on buying things or whatever, so that money gets put back into the economy. Sounds logical, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong. There is a thing in economics called the multiplier effect. As money travels through the economy from consumer to supplier, from employer to employee, from employee (aka consumer) to whatever...anyway, as money flows, it runs the economic engine. The more "work" it does in the economy, the higher the multiplier effect. Now here's the thing: let's say you have an upper income person. He buys things as a consumer, sure. But he is also more likely to invest his money in various ways - which means the money from the rich dude travels through the economy in a more convolute way, which performs more economic work. Let's say he invests in stock - that money goes to a company which might then in turn build a new factory from investment money given by others. This creates new demand for suppliers to the factory for whatever raw materials they use. It also creates new jobs - which in turn furthers the money flowing from employees (consumers) to businesses that sell things. Or, the richer guy might decide to open a business of hs own. That also increases demand for supplies, and new jobs, which then means more money flowing into the economy from the new employees to whatever they spend money on. Or he might just stash it away in a CD, which gives banks funds to loan out, which could go into a new house for someone, or a new car, or a new business. The more that the money does, the greater the multiplier effect as it travels through the economy.

That was just a very simplified look at how money flows. Now, imagine Obama steps in and tells the upper income dude that he makes too much money - he doesn't need all of that, and so the Obama plan steals (sorry, I should use 'takes', but stealing almost seems more appropriate) money from the rich dude and gives to the poor dude. Now, the poor dude will spend the money on consumer goods, just like the rich guy. That gets the transferred money back into the economy, true. The problem is that when you reduce the money the richer peeps have to spend and give it to the poorer peeps, the multiplier effect is radically diminshed. That sounds harsh, but it's just a fact of life. The poorer peeps are far less likely to invest that money, whether in stocks, a new business, or in a bank, all of which means that the money taken from the rich guy and given to the poor guy travels less through the economy - the multiplier effect is lost. In effect, transferring wealth can actually severly impact the economy. This isn't a dig on poor people - not at all! It's just a brutally honest look at how our capitalist system works.

When the economy is in recession, you want your money doing as much work as it possibly can. Wealth transfer is a economic engine killer. Or at least it's a major slow-it-downer. And that is exactly what we don't need right now. Forget Republican/Democrat. Forget conservative/liberal. Forget black/white. Just from a purely economic perspective, Obama is a bad choice. And Obama with a Democrat supermajority in Congress - that spells economic disaster. And you all thought Jimmy Carter was bad! Just wait.

Obama is bad for another reason. The next president will likely get to pick at least two Supreme Court justices, if not more. We don't need a Supreme Court filled with activist judges who try to make law from the bench. We need a SC that makes judgements according to what the US Constitution says, not what they think the founders really meant. They told us what they meant - it's in the Constitution. Have you ever read the damned thing? (Sorry, I'm quoting a friend - an inside joke. Some of you will get it) I really like the part that says (paraphrasing here) : All powers not given to the Federal govt and not prohibited to the States are hereby reserved for the States. In other words, if it ain't given to the Feds, and it ain't denied to the States, then the States can do it.

The Founders did not intend for the United States to become a centrally dominated nation like it is becoming. In fact, for a long time, the country was referred to collectively as "THESE United States". No, the states weren't meant to be sovereign - the Constitution is clear on that. But when you read the writings of the founders, you realize that they saw the states as individual laboratories of democracy. States would do different things, and some would work and some wouldn't. And then the other states could copy the effective ideas, or not. Anyway, that's not my point. I am simply saying that we need a SC that doesn't reinterpret the Constitution to make it say things that the Founders didn't put in there. I believe Obama would appoint activist judges - the absolute last thing we need. Of course, we've all heard Obama talking about how the SC, during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, didn't venture into the wealth redistribution territory due to the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution. Which one might take to mean that Obama thinks those constitutional restrictions should be changed.

(shakes head violently in amazement, makes a goofy wuuuhhh??? sound)

Obama wants to move America further down the road to socialism. Economically, that dog won't hunt. (Translation for the non-country people: Economically, socialism doesn't work). It's possible to transform a nation with socialist policies (see Europe, etc) but socialism tends to ramp down the economic engine considerably. Obama wants to move us closer to socialism - that much is certain. He also implied that the Constitutional restrictions on the SC are obstacles that we might be better off doing away with. My point is that, on these two fronts, Obama stands poined to begin a transformation of America as we know it into something else. I seriously doubt the doomsayers who claim that an Obama presidency will destroy America. One man can't do that, I don't think. But I absolutely think that Obama can weaken our nation economically, and also stack the SC deck with activist juddges, which would allow even greater changes from the America we know in the coming decades.

America became a great nation because of (well, for several reasons) our guaranteed freedoms - free speech, private property rights, religion protected from interference from the state, just to name a few. We've also made some serious blunders. Slavery, limitations of liberties for minorities and women, the screwing over we did to the Native Americans again and again, Japanese internment camps, and much more. However, the cool thing about America is that we tend to correct our mistakes. Slavery - gone. The effects of slavery and how it affects blacks today - we're still working on that one. Anyone, regardless of race or sex, can vote (if they're 18). The Indians...well, that's one I don't think we can ever really make amends for. (Gee, sorry for taking your entire land...but we'll let you build casinos and take the white man's money! That will make things right. Yeah, sure)

My point is that America tends to correct itself. And since our inception, we've been a beacon of freedom and liberty as immigrants poured into our country, helping to build our nation. We tend to forget that today, I think. Yes, I know that the illegal immigrants are a problem - but I don't think the answer is to deport them all. Economically, that dog won't hunt. But just from a compassionate viewpoint - sending them all packing would be a 21st century version of the Trail Of Tears. Yes, they broke the law. There is no denying that. But I don't think Jesus would want us to just boot them out - what would Jesus do in this situation? Get back to me with that answer.

Where was I? Oh yeah, America, through the late 19th century and through most of the 20th, was a shining beacon of light, of hope - of freedom! I think we've begun to lose our way, however. It's not permanent yet. But I think an Obama presidency will have lasting detrimental effects on the very nature of what it means to be American. We could be looking at the beginning of the end of the American Era in world history. Rome didn't collapse in a day - neither will we. But the similarities are striking: society sliding into decadence, high taxes, a spread out military force that required even more taxation, just to name a few things. I don't think America will end after Obama's inauguration - that's just silly. But we could very well be the generation that sees the greatness of America begin to diminish - not just because of Obama. I don't think he's an evil man. I truly believe he's sincere in his views, and I think he believes his ideas are good for America. I also think he's dead wrong on that. But Barack Obama is not an evil man.

Something I was discussing with a friend of mine during our regular Friday 6 AM bible study (formerly at Starbucks, now at Paris Coffee). I just threw out a scenario to Marc. (Warning: those of you who aren't a believer in Christ may not get this part - that's okay). Obama wins. He pulls us out of Iraq. Iraq isn't stable yet - and Iran is licking its chops even as we speak. Russia needs allies - and the best way to get allies in that neck of the woods is to be against Israel. Somehow, Russia and several Islamic nations come agains Israel. We would be obligated to respond. Where it goes from there, I would rather not think about.

That was just a thought exercise - I don't believe that is going to happen, or at least not anytime soon (Ezekiel 39-39!!!). Here's the thing: there is virtually no mention of America in the Bible, as far as anyone can tell. Oh, some peeps want to make a connection between America and the "young lions of Tarshish" but I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that's a reference to America. Anyway, America's lack of mention in the endtimes prophecy is interesting. You'd think a superpower would at least come up once, right? The lack of mention of America makes me think that either we have become weak militarily and economically (we're heading that way for dang dure!) by the time these prophecies start to unwind, or perhaps we've been attacked and lost, or any number of things that would diminish America's standing in the world. Here's my point (you were starting to think was just rambling, weren't you? You might be right, lol). I believe that God is firmly in control of world events. Ain't nothing gonna happen that would take Him by surprise. In other words, God never has a wtf moment. If He wants America to start down the road to socialism, then guess what? We're going to go down that path. If God wants McCain to win, guess what? McCain will win. If we get nuked tomorrow, guess what? God is in control. And ultimately, God wins over the forces of evil. No worries there.

So whatever happens today as far as the election goes, just remember: God is in control. Whoever becomes president must answer to God - nobody is above Him, ha ha. And although an Obama presidency is like fingernails on a chalkboard to my libertarian beliefs, guess what? If Obama is elected, then he is my president. That's what the Constitution says.

I just kinda read over this whole post - and yeah, I did kinda ramble. No proofing, though, except for spelling. I write pretty much stream-of-consciousness, so what you read is pretty much what was running through my mind. And THAT is a scary thought. No polishing, no prettying it up. Just raw political, philsophical, and prophetic thought.

And now...it's time to go vote. Excuse me.