Barack Obama and George W. Bush are More Alike than you May Realize

President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise that he would be very different from his predecessor former President George W. Bush. When Bush was in office there were many individuals who ardently despised him because of the policies that he enacted. But if you look at Obama’s track record so far, the facts reveal that he has actually continued many of Bush’s hated policies and created several ones of his own. Here are just a few that you might not be aware of. The following are links to articles:

1. Obama signs an extension of The Patriot Act

2. Obama gets what Bush wanted, no legal rights for enemy combatants

3. Obama continues the practice of rendition, the practice of kidnapping terrorist suspects

4. Obama quietly removes pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq

5. Obama continues unconstitutional policy of warrantless surveillance

6. Obama will be given the right to shut down the internet

The facts don’t lie. Barack Obama is not that different then his predecessor when it comes to some policies. He wants you to think that Bush is the "bad guy" while at the same time he's doing the same things Bush did behind your back. The truth is, politicians are all the same in that they often make empty promises to you in order to get elected. Politicians from both sides of the isle will tell you whatever it takes to get your vote and this is why it's important that we vote for candidates based on their past policies, not on their political parties. We must send a clear message to every corrupt, dishonest politician in Washington that they need to change their behavior and become more honest otherwise they will lose our vote and thus their power. If you are one of those people who have participated in partisan politics before in the past make a pledge to yourself that you will no longer vote for people based on party lines. The future of our constitution and our country lies in your hands.

4 Simple Reasons why Politicians are Destroying our Economy

Why European Socialism Could Not Exist without the US Tax Payer

When I argue with people who love socialism, I always find it funny when they throw out the example of how well socialism is working in Scandinavian countries like Denmark. They give explanations such as “I saw on Oprah how wonderful socialism in Denmark is." I doubt they realize that after WWII, the US military began protecting these countries and as a result they do not have to pay for their own military because they’re essentially using ours. Consequently the money that they would normally spend on a military is being spent on entitlements such as free health care and 90% of earnings unemployment for up to four years. Militaries are extremely expensive and it is doubtful that these countries would be able to afford these socialist entitlements if they had to pay for their own. Furthermore, the US Navy protects the European seas so that these countries can trade with other countries peacefully. These sea port countries would not be able to keep their fishing industry dependent economies afloat if our Navy did not make peaceful trade possible for them. Europeans call the US tax payer “uncivilized” while at the same time they are piggybacking off of them. How ironic is that?

Despite our subsidization of Scandinavian socialism, the tax burden keeps getting heavier in these countries. If you live in a Scandinavian country you will hand over most of what you earn to the government. Between 1990 and 2005, the income tax burden for regular people living in Sweden was 61%. This has not grown Scandinavian economies, it has shrunken them. Since the introduction of a high income tax in the 1970’s, the Scandinavian economy world rankings have substantially decreased. One the other hand Ireland decided to take a free market capitalistic approach and has seen an explosion in economic growth since a low 1% income tax was implemented 20 years ago. From 1989 to 2003, Ireland’s economy ranking jumped from 21^st to 4^th place in the world.

Job creations, work productivity, income and saving levels have also dramatically increased in Ireland since the implementation of a low 1% income tax while the opposite has occurred in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark. Furthermore, because in Scandinavian countries a trash man essentially earns the same income as a doctor, there is no incentive for anyone to go into the more difficult professions and as a result there is a huge shortage of people in their medical and technical fields. Many of their doctors are actually trying to move to the US now.

If you want to see what socialism does to a country when it is not being subsidized by the US, take a look at North Korea. The comparison between North and South Korea is a good example of how free market capitalism creates freedom and prosperity while socialist/Marxist policies do not because they were at one time the same country. They broke apart and South Korea chose capitalism and became wealthy and abundant while North Korea chose socialism and well……..let’s just say the North Korean economy is so barren, water and electricity are rationed there, you rarely see cars on the street during the day time and most people are lucky to even eat two full meals a day. This is what a socialistic country is like that is not being subsidized by the US. It is time that the US tax payer stops subsidizing the welfare states of Scandinavian countries. We must put our feet down and say “we will not let you take advantage of us anymore.”

Articles and Sources

American defense spending subsidizes European free-riding welfare states

The myth about socialist European prosperity

4 Simple reasons why politicians are destroying our economy

Why doctors are fleeing socialist countries

Ireland's low income tax

How American Defense Spending Finances European Socialism

The Truth about the Federal Reserve; You Will be Shocked

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 under the administration of president Woodrow Wilson. Wilson did many destructive things to hurt the US such as racially segregating the military so that Black and White American soliders could not fight together. But the establishment of the Federal Reserve in the US is by far the most destructive single act a president has ever committed. Why do I say this? In 1919 president Woodrow Wilson stated about the Federal Reserve in his own words.....

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson 1919

Please watch this short clip that reveals the shocking truth about the Federal Reserve. I recommend watching parts 1 and 2 but definitely watch part 1 because it is shocking. We are all slaves to this private institution whether you know about it or not.

Is Mexcio Being Hypocrtical About Illegal Immigration?

Mexican president Felipe Calderon recently expressed that he believes Arizona's new immigration law is discriminatory and inhumane. He failed to mention the fact that Mexico itself has extremely strict and much more inhumane laws towards illegal immigration than the US and unlike in the US, immigration laws in Mexico are strictly enforced. Under Mexican law, individuals caught in the country illegally (especially those caught working illegally) are not even given due process under the law and have no legal rights to be treated humanely and fairly. For many years now Mexico has been experiencing a major problem with illegal immigration on its southern Central American border. The problem had become so severe in recent years that the Mexican government sent several thousand troops to the border to alleviate the problem. The Mexican people living in nearby villages were "outraged" and "angry" that the Central Americans were trying to cross their borders illegally and they demanded that their government do something to fix the problem. Does any of this sound familiar to you? Mexico is allowed to enforce their immigration laws, even send armed troops to their border but Arizona isn't allowed to do the exact same thing even though the violence there has grown so rampant that many people now fear for their lives. Wouldn't the people of Mexico and Felipe Calderon technically be considered hypocrites for this kind of double standard and shouldn't Calderon practice what he preaches before he condemns another countries' laws?

Many opponents of Arizona's new immigration law do not realize that in March 2005 in Muehler vs. Mena, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal agents have the authority to stop anyone at anytime without reasonable cause and request verification of citizenship. Now if you have read the 10 page Arizona law, you know very well that it is much less harsh then this federal ruling. It states that individuals can only be asked to show verification of citizenship when there is reasonable cause, essentially only when they have already broken the law. Furthermore, it is stated very clearly in the law that individuals can sue the state if they feel that they have been unfairly discriminated against because of the law. Therefore, the Arizona law is actually more lenient then the federal law and if the federal law was ever actually enforced, more people would be asked to show proof of citizenship whether they had broken the law or not. The people of Arizona are tired of the violence that the drug cartels have brought to their state and they are sending out a cry for help to the federal government but instead of helping them, the Obama administration is condemning them for basically enforcing the federal law.

Articles and Sources
Muehler vs. Mena Supreme Court Ruling 2005
Mexico Treats Their Illegal Immigrants Inhumanely!
Mexico Cracks Down on Illegal Central American Immigrants

The Truth about the Uninsured in America: What Politicians Don’t Want You to Know

The US Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million people in the Us are without health insurance but if you take a closer look at the numbers, a different picture starts to emerge, a picture that many politicians in Washington don't want you to know about. Here is a breakdown of who the "real" uninsured people are in America. According to the US Census Bureau....

• 9 million make over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance
• 14 million are illegible through another program (i.e. spouse's program). 5 million of them can get it through an employer but choose not to
• 9.7 million are illegal immigrants-according to the Kaiser Family Foundation
• 3-5 million are in-between jobs
• 6 million are young people between the ages of 21-35
• That leaves 4 million people who are over the age of 35 and legitimately need health insurance

Destroying our entire healthcare system and letting the government take over 1/6 of our economy for 4 million people does not sound like a very bright idea to me. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, it's simple logic and common sense. Removing the barriers that prevent us from purchasing insurance in other states will increase competition between health insurance companies, thus increase the quality of insurance for people who already have it and single handedly drive down the price for the actual 4 million who don't, buy forcing these companies to compete against hundreds of other companies from around the country instead of just a few in each state. FORCE these companies to have to compete against many, many, many other companies for your business. What part of this simple logic do the corrupt politicians in Washington not understand?