The Obamessiah is still performing convolutions on several issues that are shaping up to be critical in the November election. First, abortion. You've probably heard how he considered the issue of life beginning being 'above his pay grade' at the Saddleback forum. Now, he's out there equivocating again. From the AP:
I'd like to point out a couple things here. First, Obama is spinning like a top since his answer was a total clunker. Second, he's also still dodging the question - do you see any real clarification in that statement? No. Third, if he wonders about when life begins, maybe he should talk with Nancy Pelosi, who's been taken to task by a number of high-ranking Catholic leaders for her incorrect understanding of the issue.
Now, this information is enough to post by itself, but what I thought was really revealing about this AP report was the almost after-thought at the end in regard to an interview with the Obamessiah's VP Joe Biden:
Did you get this?? He admits that he believes human life begins at conception...and then admits that he's unwilling to fight for those lives! This statement is likely to become a big, BIG problem for them as November draws near. For people who care about abortion, this is NOT going to go over well.
Next up is probably the biggest campaign issue for November: the economy, specifically, taxes:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! The first thing is the most obvious: IF RESCINDING TAX CUTS HURTS THE ECONOMY, WHY DO IT AT ALL, EVER???? He's admitting that he understands higher taxes are bad for the economy, but he's going to do it anyway! Why? Remember, he views taxation as being about fairness, not about the actual economy - he wants to punish the wealthy and productive.
I'm still curious to understand Obama's 'middle class tax cuts'. It sounds great, but I have yet to see an actual plan that lowers taxes on the middle class. We all know he's proposing to raise pretty much every other tax there is, but all I know about is his plan to kill Bush's tax cuts, which benefitted the middle class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't removing a tax cut the same net effect as increasing taxes? Let's have the actual plan for middle class tax cuts, Obamessiah!
By contrast, McCain is proposing to lower tax rates and completely eliminate some taxes across the board for all Americans. That's a real plan, and something that all Americans should be able to get behind!
The Obamessiah's tax plan constitutes just another Democrat mess that Republicans will eventually have to clean up, like the current Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bailout that just happened. While it appears that such a rescue may have been necessary (though that's debatable) to prevent further damage to housing and financial markets, the conditions that forced this bailout were caused by Democrat policies:
When will Americans wake up to the fact that liberal (i.e. Democrat) policies are bad for America? I take that back...when will Democrat constituencies wake up? The rest of us have been awake for years. The Dems seek to put power into the hands of government, allowing the government to provide for as many possible as possible. That's fundamentally a flawed way to run the country, and we are now reaping the fruit of these policies that were implemented years ago by liberals (primarily Democrats).
This is the problem with starting down a slippery slope - it's extremely difficult to go back up. It can be done, if the country as a whole gets riled enough to force the change. Let's have some backlash (and don't elect Barack the Obamessiah)!
There's my two cents.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday that he was probably too flip when he said it was "above my pay grade" to answer a question about when is a baby entitled to human rights.
Asked on Sunday whether the "above my pay grade" answer was too flip, Obama said: "Probably. ...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It's a pretty tough question.
"And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
Asked on Sunday whether the "above my pay grade" answer was too flip, Obama said: "Probably. ...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It's a pretty tough question.
"And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
I'd like to point out a couple things here. First, Obama is spinning like a top since his answer was a total clunker. Second, he's also still dodging the question - do you see any real clarification in that statement? No. Third, if he wonders about when life begins, maybe he should talk with Nancy Pelosi, who's been taken to task by a number of high-ranking Catholic leaders for her incorrect understanding of the issue.
Now, this information is enough to post by itself, but what I thought was really revealing about this AP report was the almost after-thought at the end in regard to an interview with the Obamessiah's VP Joe Biden:
A Roman Catholic, Biden said he accepts his church's teachings that life begins at conception, but that the issue is personal for him. He said it wouldn't be right to impose his views on others who are just as religious as he is.
"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press.""For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."
Next up is probably the biggest campaign issue for November: the economy, specifically, taxes:
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."
I'm still curious to understand Obama's 'middle class tax cuts'. It sounds great, but I have yet to see an actual plan that lowers taxes on the middle class. We all know he's proposing to raise pretty much every other tax there is, but all I know about is his plan to kill Bush's tax cuts, which benefitted the middle class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't removing a tax cut the same net effect as increasing taxes? Let's have the actual plan for middle class tax cuts, Obamessiah!
By contrast, McCain is proposing to lower tax rates and completely eliminate some taxes across the board for all Americans. That's a real plan, and something that all Americans should be able to get behind!
The Obamessiah's tax plan constitutes just another Democrat mess that Republicans will eventually have to clean up, like the current Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bailout that just happened. While it appears that such a rescue may have been necessary (though that's debatable) to prevent further damage to housing and financial markets, the conditions that forced this bailout were caused by Democrat policies:
Many of the so-called "creative mortgages" were designed in response to politically correct and racially motivate legislation demanding that lenders have more minorities in their customer portfolio. Again, this was not something that came from the right side of the aisle.
And all of this came crashing down as the oil markets soared and people in the sub prime market had to choose between groceries, gas or mortgage payments. More liberal policies at work when you look at our energy situation over the past 30 years of course. Choosing to pay the former, these defaulting mortgages jump-started the mortgage-housing meltdown. These problems were the worst, of course, in liberal-controlled states like Michigan and California where government has driven businesses away and taxes up. And the result has been a cascading down of home values, bank failures and more deterioration of millions of 401K plans. It's no wonder that Dick Armey says that "economic illiteracy" is required to join the Democrat caucus in congress.
So today, the grown ups had to step in and do what they did. This may or may not be good for the taxpayer in all of us. It is certainly necessary for the stockholder and homeonwer in all of us. Even if you don't own a home, this is good for you since having your landlord go broke will not help anyone.
The conservative philosopher in us is split, of course. This is kind of a quasi-socialist step that was needed to correct what were simply liberal fallacies. (makes you wonder if there was a grand plan afterall?) Free marketeers cannot like this part of it. The worst part could the precedent it might set for the auto industry, ailing of course thanks to the liberal energy policies on top of liberal union power.
When will Americans wake up to the fact that liberal (i.e. Democrat) policies are bad for America? I take that back...when will Democrat constituencies wake up? The rest of us have been awake for years. The Dems seek to put power into the hands of government, allowing the government to provide for as many possible as possible. That's fundamentally a flawed way to run the country, and we are now reaping the fruit of these policies that were implemented years ago by liberals (primarily Democrats).
This is the problem with starting down a slippery slope - it's extremely difficult to go back up. It can be done, if the country as a whole gets riled enough to force the change. Let's have some backlash (and don't elect Barack the Obamessiah)!
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment