Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

Obama’s Jedi Mind Tricks (HT: Justin)

A comment from a friend on my last post about Barack Obama’s “bitter” elitism deserved a more complete answer in the form of a post. Here is his original comment:

Which part of Obama’s statement to you take offense to? It seems pretty reasonable to me. In context, what he’s saying is that the lower class has been promised much and delivered little over the past 25 years. Of course they’re bitter.

I don’t see why calling out the inequalities of our current economic system is perceived as “elitism”.

I take offense to the idea that rural residents of Pennsylvania (or anywhere else for that matter) “cling” to “guns or religion”. It belittles faith and the right of citizens to own firearms by implying that believing in God or owning a firearm is some sort of mental pacifier. I think it’s just as bad to stereotype/judge gun owners or believers as it is to stereotype African-Americans or any other race.

A Barack Obama presidency (or any DNC Presidency for the matter) would make any of the “inequalities” you refer to much worse. Take Obama’s opposition to NAFTA for example:

“Senator Obama blames “politicians in Washington” for signing trade agreements that he says are bad for the economy because they provide perks for businesses but don’t protect workers. (Source: IHT, Clinton and Obama address economic fears, February 18, 2008)”

Yet NAFTA, promoted by Republicans in congress, along with the general free trade approach that Obama and Clinton both oppose, has overwhelmingly helped out the poor.

Let’s look at unemployment and inflation for example:
7.1 avg. unemployment - 1980-1994 - pre-NAFTA - Democrats controlled gov’t purse strings
5.0 avg. unemployment - 1994-2008 - post-NAFTA - GOP mostly controlled gov’t purse strings

99% total inflation - pre-NAFTA - 1980-1994 - Democrats controlled gov’t purse strings
45% total inflation - post-NAFTA - 1994-2008 - GOP mostly controlled gov’t purse strings

The bottom line: Obama is being hypocritical on two fronts:
1. He is judging rural Americans, gun owners and believers as a group in the same way he would not want to be judged as a member of an African-American group.
2. He is ridiculing this same group for it’s “anti-trade sentiment” when he is anti-trade (anti-NAFTA) himself!

Here is the quote again in case you missed it:

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”

This video is a great example of exactly what I have been talking about. Barack supporters are high on “hope” and “change” but, they cannot name a single accomplishment from their chosen savior’s almost non-existent record.

HT: Hotline on Call

A conservative friend of mine recently sent me the article “Is Obama Good for Business?” by BusinessWeek’s Eamon Javers. He was trying to help reduce my fears of what an Obama presidency would do to our country. I have stated over and over (and over and over) again that I think Obama and his policies would be disastrous for our country and still maintain this position after reading the article. Why? Let me break the article down for you.

1. The article consists of blatantly false Democratic talking points like:

“he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts that benefit many of the people running big American companies.”

The Bush tax cuts almost doubled the per child tax credit (from $600 to $1000), this disproportionatley helps the poor and middle class as they tend to have more kids (not to mention, people who make more money are subject to the alternative minimum tax and do not get per child tax credits).

Beyond that, the Bush tax cuts were a huge help to SMALL businesses, not just the oft-demonized-by-the-left big businesses! I am so tired of people talking about him cutting taxes for the rich. Small businesses produce 70% of the new jobs in this country and are emblematic of the American dream. Small business are mostly Sole Proprietorships, a business classification that basically makes them taxed at the individual tax rate.

So, if you have 8 people working for a small business, that small business can quickly be taxed at the high rates Democrats use to target the “rich” and then be forced to lay people off or cut benefits. When Obama and Hillary talk about “rolling back Bush’s tax cuts on the rich”, what they are really talking about is taxing the small businesses that are producing 70% of the new jobs this country so desperately needs.

2. The article actually further enforces my resolve against a possible Obama presidency, his policies are even more damaging than either of the Clintons.

“And in a reflection of the Democratic Party’s drift away from pure free-trade positions, Obama says he would look to amend the NAFTA trade agreement to add similar protections to the Clinton-era pact.”

Translation: Left of Bill Clinton, enough said. And the Democratic Party is not “drifting” from free-market positions, they sailed to the other side of the world.

“his plan to restore “balance” to the economy”

Translated: More wealth redistribution/socialism.

“Goolsbee says the distinction with Clinton is most evident in the candidates’ plans to increase the personal savings rate. Obama would create an automatic 3% savings withholding from every paycheck that employees could opt out of if they want to. Clinton, on the other hand, proposes a targeted tax break to incentivize savings.”

Translation: Obama is even more commited to nanny statism that Clinton. Keep your hands off my paycheck! Incentives at least give America a choice, Obama wants to spam our paychecks with opt-out government programs.

3. The piece is actually more biased then the New York Times, I am thoroughly disappointed in BusinessWeek for even printing it.

Check out the breakdown of quotes in this article:
2 quotes from Democratic Consultants
0 quotes from Republican Consultants

1 Example of a CEO who likes Obama and corresponds with him
0 Examples of CEOs who disagree with Obama or even think Clinton is better

1 Quote from the head of a Chamber of Commerce about Obama’s character
0 Quotes from anyone about the damaging effects of Obama’s liberal policies in Illinois

If this breakdown surprises you, you may want to checkout an award the author of the piece, Eamon Javers, got from the lefty organization Press Action for being “on a roll” as a liberal muckraker exposing conservatives.

Overall, I expected better from BusinessWeek and I expect better for America when it comes to choosing our President.

Happy Valentine’s day with a political twist!

WashPoetWritersGroup
(HT:Brian and Scott)

To send your RNC Valentines eCards, click here.

Watching Obama speak makes me depressed. Why? Because his great political abilities are being used to ply Americans with platitudes when they need real economic changes like tax cuts to save our economy and real spending reform, not socialized healthcare.

Alas, the man can and will sell ice cubes to Eskimos and bad policy to US citizens, many of whom are convinced he is a true “uniter” (although they can provide no evidence of this). James Pethokoukis sums up the situation well when he describes the conservative view of Obama:

Please. Obama is actually Jimmy Carter, a guy elected president by a dispirited country who is then unable to deliver on his promises of “healing.” After a catastrophic four years of higher taxes and more government—who knew “unity” cost so much?—and more division, America will turn to Bobby Jindal/David Petraeus/John Roberts/Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin for true leadership.

This description of the Obama campaign is the most telling:

Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system.

Is that the “hope” that is best for America? I think not. I have to agree with this quote from McCain’s campaign manager:

“Davis also commented about Obama being ranked by National Journal (full disclosure, NJ is Hotline’s parent co.) as the most liberal senator: “I don’t know if all 17,000 people who were in his audience last night know that. … But they will.” He also made it clear that he believes McCain can easily compete with Obama’s message of change, saying of McCain: “Nobody has been a bigger catalyst for change.”

How about some real “hope”…

“Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing,” McCain said. “I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men’s hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.

“To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”

A close friend of mine recently sent me this op ed from the Washington Post about Barack Obama’s supposed appeal to some “Republicans”. Let me sum it up for you in one sentence:

Some Republicans like Obama because he is fighting the Clintons and speaks well despite be an inexperienced empty suit.

Ok, I added the empty suit part from this focus group that emphasized a feeling from Obama but couldn’t name a single example of him uniting or accomplishing anything.

The key quote from the article is exactly what I pointed out in my last post about him being the most liberal member of the senate:

“If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and fails to take steps such as this, his liberal views will be his greatest vulnerability. Obama will try to reject the liberal label — but based on his stands on the issues, at least so far, the label will fit, and it will stick.“

Is he a uniter? No, he is the most liberal member of congress masquerading as a “hope for America” “bipartisan” uniter. If anyone is a true uniter with a record to back it up (though I don’t necessarily support him), it’s John McCain.

Obama has charisma. I will definitely give him that. He is probably the best campaigner out there. I can admire that but, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking he is a “moderate” or a “uniter”. He is the most partisan of politicians. Look at the latest ratings from the non partisan National Journal:

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings.”
…
“On foreign policy, for example, Obama’s liberal score of 92 and conservative score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more conservative than 7 percent.”
…
“Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect liberal”

Obama is way ahead with my generation, the media and popular personas perpetuate this every day but, I think our generation will cheat ourselves and our posterity if we fall for Obama’s charisma while ignoring his extremist, harmful policies.

Given, this may not effect the average college students’ choice but, just remember that as we go to the polls, a vote for Obama is not a vote for some star powered moderate who will unite us all, it’s a vote for the most extreme liberal in the Senate.