Barrack Obama issued his latest ad today entitled “Still.” Now this ad is clearly a sign that the Obama campaign is reeling from recent Republican momentum and is desperately searching for something to grab hold of in order to right their ship. They are urgently searching for that one sound bite or character flaw of John McCain/Sarah Palin to exploit, and hopefully use to regain the momentous ground they have recently lost. They’ve tried throughout the week, but nothing has really stuck quite yet (“the lipstick on a pig” comment didn’t turn out very well). But it seems that today, the Dems feel like they’ve finally found their election-shifting issue. It appears they’ve stumbled upon the one attribute of a McCain-Palin presidency that will shock the American public and propel Senator Obama back into the lead. What is this earth-shattering revelation? Well ladies and gentleman, you must prepare yourselves, for this revelation will surely alter the way you view the election and these candidates. Today the Obama campaign released their newest ad outlining John McCain’s….COMPUTER ILLITERACY!!!!
Terrifying, is it not? John McCain is bad at using computers. The ad begins with a shot of McCain in the 1980’s, when he first began his tenure in Washington. It then states, “1982, John McCain goes to Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't. He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail…” The ad then goes on to deride McCain as someone who doesn’t “understand the economy” and will provide tax breaks for American corporations over the middle class. But my favorite is the part about the computers, without a doubt.
But it gets worse. In conjunction with the release of the ad, Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said this: "Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats. It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." That’s right folks, the Obama campaign wants to link John McCain’s computer illiteracy with the stability of our economy and the strength of our national security. That’s a bit of a stretch if you ask me.
But the bottom line is this: who gives a rat’s behind about whether or not John McCain uses email. That has absolutely no reflection of John McCain’s ability to lead this country as commander-in-chief. Now an example of something that WOULD hurt one’s qualification to become commander-in-chief would be, say, a total lack of experience. I don’t know about y’all, but when selecting my next President I’ll take the experienced war hero who doesn’t know how to navigate a webpage over the 4 year junior Senator who only knows how to make speeches any day of the week.
Their getting desperate folks. Their getting very desperate. This ad might be absolutely laughable, but it’s a good sign for Republicans.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE WAR
It seems daily that we are inundated with a constant stream of criticism and protest over the war in Iraq. Politicians, political activists, and ordinary Americans alike unite in their unabashed detestation of a conflict that has been raging for 5 years now. “No blood for oil”; “end the occupation now”; “Bush lied, people died.” We’ve heard these rants so often that we’re almost immune to them now. No longer do we stop to consider the sheer stupidity of what these people say. No longer do we feel the need to question these naysayers and stand up for a war that has promoted freedom and quelled tyranny. No longer do we defend the bravery and honor of a great American President. It as if we’ve just given in and accepted the notion that the war has been a miserable failure and our President a lying criminal. It’s as if we’ve surrendered to the defeatists and political opportunists who habitually deny the success and justice of the Iraq war. Well I for one am fed up with it all. So today I endeavor to reignite a support for this war. I seek to convince anyone willing to listen that the war in Iraq was completely justified and wholly necessary.
Now I’m sure some of you are thinking, “what an old topic…haven’t we heard enough about the war…what about the election, the economy, or Sarah Palin for crying out loud?” To you I say this: we must never forget that the war in Iraq and the overarching war against Islamic terrorism is the single most significant issue facing our country. Sure the latest election poll or Palin speech might be a heck of a lot more entertaining, but lest we forget that 7 years ago today 3,000 American’s died in the worst attack in our nation’s history, and the cowards that carried out those attacks have innumerable comrades lurking in the shadows waiting for the next opportunity to shed American blood. These men are spineless and detestable excuses for human beings and they want nothing more than to see you, me, and our families dead. So listen up…
Over five years ago the aptly named “shock and awe” campaign began as U.S. airmen kicked of the Second Gulf War with a pummeling of strategic positions inside Iraq. It’s been over five year since images surfaced of Iraqi citizens joyously trampling and spitting on a statue of the newly-deposed dictator and menace Saddam Hussein. And today, as U.S. service men and women continue the fight in Iraq, five years seems like a lifetime. Looking back there certainly are many mistakes that were made in the course of the conflict and there is most definitely a lot to learn from. We can easily say that we should have done this better or done that sooner, but looking back it is absolutely vital to prevent doubts and protest to overcome the truth of what the Iraq war is and the purpose it is serving. There are two FACTS about this conflict that every American must know: (1) The war was/is just and necessary (2) We are winning the war.
(1) The War Was/Is Just and Necessary – when we talk of the Iraq war we must remember its larger context. We must remember that it is just one of many fronts that make up a much broader struggle against traditionalist Islamic terrorists who would stop at nothing to inflict pain on America and her infidel citizens. The overarching mission of this war on terrorism is to seek out the enemy and kill or capture them before their able to satisfy their thirst for American blood. Essentially, we must stick it to the enemy before the enemy can stick it to us. Success means safety for you and me, while failure will undoubtedly bring about deadly repercussions.
How can I say this, you might ask. I can say this because I can flashback 7 years and remember watching, as a terrified 13 year old, as the World Trade Center crumbled into the streets of New York City. Make no mistake about it, the only people to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001 were the gutless madmen who hijacked and crashed those planes. However, the imminent threat they posed was by no means a surprise. As a country we let our guard down, failed to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously, and we paid the price. These men had, after all, attacked before: the World Trade Center in 1993, US Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S. Cole in 2000. The mission we are currently fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan held no prevalence, and our failure to pursue our enemies before they could attack again proved a fatal mistake.
And so it is under that banner that we fight in Iraq – to stop the Muhammad Atta’s and Osama Bin Laden’s of the world from carrying out any more of their heinous and deadly acts against the innocent citizens of this country and any other. Included in such a mission is the search for and destruction of individual terrorist cells, and an effort to hold terrorist sponsoring and harboring governments accountable. And THAT is exactly why we invaded Iraq five years ago, and exactly why we are still there today continuing the fight. WMD’s or no WMD’s the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly an enemy of this country and of freedom, and it had to be deposed with great force and determination. Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama can say all they want about how the threat in Iraq was a fabricated lie, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of this country before he was ever our friend, and if given the choice between Islamic terrorists and the United States of America, he would choose the terrorists. And even if he hadn’t made that choice before 2003, we made darn sure that he was never given the opportunity, and for that I thank God. That is after all the overarching mission that I keep referring to (it is very important) – preventing terrorist and terrorist-supporters from achieving even the smallest of gains.
So in summary, the war in Iraq is fully justified because it is completely loyal to the mission of the war on terrorism. We have deposed an evil dictator and deprived him of the opportunity of contributing to the deaths of American citizens. And in addition to that (don’t miss this), we have drawn individual terrorists from their rat holes and caves and killed them by the thousands. We have killed them by the thousands on their soil, and not ours. We have never let these evil parasites rest and as a result, this country hasn’t seen an attack since September 11, 2001.
(2) We are winning the war – although many could legitimately argue that the time between the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein and the surge of 2006 was marked by American missteps and miscalculation, today no one in their right mind can deny the fact that we ARE winning in Iraq. Thanks to the perseverance of President Bush, the leadership of American generals, and the unmatched bravery of American service men and women, we are decimating the enemy and gradually bringing freedom and stability to Iraq. The major turning point in the war, of course, came when the President enacted a so-called surge strategy a little over 2 years ago. Under the surge, 30,000 additional U.S. troops swept into Iraq and furiously took on the insurgency, systematically dismantling Al Qaeda-in-Iraq and their allies. Under the leadership of General David Patraeus, a true American hero, U.S. forces swung the war back in our direction and today we are well on our way to victory. I don’t think anything speaks louder than the statistics recorded since the surge began (courtesy of Nile Gardner of the Heritage Foundation):
- Since June 2007, attacks in Iraq down more than 60%
- Since July 2007, civilian deaths down more than 70%
- Since May 2007, coalition deaths down more than 70%
- Since June 2007, overall ethno-sectarian violence down 90%
- Since joint operations launched in January, 26 senior Al Qaeda officials captured
- 2/3 of Al Qaeda forces in Iraq wiped out
- Since 2003, more than 30,000 private sector companies registered
- Inflation fallen from 65% in 2007 to under 5% in 2008
- Government budget doubled in past 3 years
- 11 of 18 provinces under Iraqi control (including, most recently Anbar province, once thought to be a hopeless cause)
Don’t let anyone ever tell you that we’re losing this war, because the simple fact is that we absolutely are not. Whether it’s Barrack Obama or your friendly neighborhood Move-On.org activist, they are dead wrong. We are winning this war, we are bringing our enemies to their knees, and we are ALL safer because of it. We are winning this war, and I have the facts to prove it (and now you do too).
Of course, as General Patraeus has said, the advancements in Iraq are “fragile and reversible.” The situation is still an extremely dangerous one and it requires our continued focus and resolve. Hasty withdrawal could easily set Iraq on a collision course with civil war and even greater bloodshed than before. But the facts are that this war is winnable, we are inching ever closer to attaining that goal, and ultimate victory will reap countless dividends for the United States and the world at large.
***A brief election note:
Barrack Obama has called the war in Iraq a “dumb war,” he has voted against troop funding twice, and has stubbornly stated that upon becoming President he will immediately begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Barrack Obama is an idiot. In more academic diction, Barrack Obama clearly has little understanding of how this war on terrorism MUST be managed and his Presidency would spell doom for this country. I can’t tell you enough how dangerous this man is. Not only is he a socialist ideologue, but he’s a foreign policy lightweight and he CANNOT become President.
Also, I’m sure many of you want to hear about Sarah Palin. Well suffice to say that she’s a rockstar. She’s a true conservative, she’s tough-as-nails, and she represents a bright future for the Republican party. We still have yet to see how she does on her toes (i.e. debates), but I’ve got a hunch that she’s going to blow us away yet again.
Now I’m sure some of you are thinking, “what an old topic…haven’t we heard enough about the war…what about the election, the economy, or Sarah Palin for crying out loud?” To you I say this: we must never forget that the war in Iraq and the overarching war against Islamic terrorism is the single most significant issue facing our country. Sure the latest election poll or Palin speech might be a heck of a lot more entertaining, but lest we forget that 7 years ago today 3,000 American’s died in the worst attack in our nation’s history, and the cowards that carried out those attacks have innumerable comrades lurking in the shadows waiting for the next opportunity to shed American blood. These men are spineless and detestable excuses for human beings and they want nothing more than to see you, me, and our families dead. So listen up…
Over five years ago the aptly named “shock and awe” campaign began as U.S. airmen kicked of the Second Gulf War with a pummeling of strategic positions inside Iraq. It’s been over five year since images surfaced of Iraqi citizens joyously trampling and spitting on a statue of the newly-deposed dictator and menace Saddam Hussein. And today, as U.S. service men and women continue the fight in Iraq, five years seems like a lifetime. Looking back there certainly are many mistakes that were made in the course of the conflict and there is most definitely a lot to learn from. We can easily say that we should have done this better or done that sooner, but looking back it is absolutely vital to prevent doubts and protest to overcome the truth of what the Iraq war is and the purpose it is serving. There are two FACTS about this conflict that every American must know: (1) The war was/is just and necessary (2) We are winning the war.
(1) The War Was/Is Just and Necessary – when we talk of the Iraq war we must remember its larger context. We must remember that it is just one of many fronts that make up a much broader struggle against traditionalist Islamic terrorists who would stop at nothing to inflict pain on America and her infidel citizens. The overarching mission of this war on terrorism is to seek out the enemy and kill or capture them before their able to satisfy their thirst for American blood. Essentially, we must stick it to the enemy before the enemy can stick it to us. Success means safety for you and me, while failure will undoubtedly bring about deadly repercussions.
How can I say this, you might ask. I can say this because I can flashback 7 years and remember watching, as a terrified 13 year old, as the World Trade Center crumbled into the streets of New York City. Make no mistake about it, the only people to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001 were the gutless madmen who hijacked and crashed those planes. However, the imminent threat they posed was by no means a surprise. As a country we let our guard down, failed to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously, and we paid the price. These men had, after all, attacked before: the World Trade Center in 1993, US Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S. Cole in 2000. The mission we are currently fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan held no prevalence, and our failure to pursue our enemies before they could attack again proved a fatal mistake.
And so it is under that banner that we fight in Iraq – to stop the Muhammad Atta’s and Osama Bin Laden’s of the world from carrying out any more of their heinous and deadly acts against the innocent citizens of this country and any other. Included in such a mission is the search for and destruction of individual terrorist cells, and an effort to hold terrorist sponsoring and harboring governments accountable. And THAT is exactly why we invaded Iraq five years ago, and exactly why we are still there today continuing the fight. WMD’s or no WMD’s the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly an enemy of this country and of freedom, and it had to be deposed with great force and determination. Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama can say all they want about how the threat in Iraq was a fabricated lie, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of this country before he was ever our friend, and if given the choice between Islamic terrorists and the United States of America, he would choose the terrorists. And even if he hadn’t made that choice before 2003, we made darn sure that he was never given the opportunity, and for that I thank God. That is after all the overarching mission that I keep referring to (it is very important) – preventing terrorist and terrorist-supporters from achieving even the smallest of gains.
So in summary, the war in Iraq is fully justified because it is completely loyal to the mission of the war on terrorism. We have deposed an evil dictator and deprived him of the opportunity of contributing to the deaths of American citizens. And in addition to that (don’t miss this), we have drawn individual terrorists from their rat holes and caves and killed them by the thousands. We have killed them by the thousands on their soil, and not ours. We have never let these evil parasites rest and as a result, this country hasn’t seen an attack since September 11, 2001.
(2) We are winning the war – although many could legitimately argue that the time between the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein and the surge of 2006 was marked by American missteps and miscalculation, today no one in their right mind can deny the fact that we ARE winning in Iraq. Thanks to the perseverance of President Bush, the leadership of American generals, and the unmatched bravery of American service men and women, we are decimating the enemy and gradually bringing freedom and stability to Iraq. The major turning point in the war, of course, came when the President enacted a so-called surge strategy a little over 2 years ago. Under the surge, 30,000 additional U.S. troops swept into Iraq and furiously took on the insurgency, systematically dismantling Al Qaeda-in-Iraq and their allies. Under the leadership of General David Patraeus, a true American hero, U.S. forces swung the war back in our direction and today we are well on our way to victory. I don’t think anything speaks louder than the statistics recorded since the surge began (courtesy of Nile Gardner of the Heritage Foundation):
- Since June 2007, attacks in Iraq down more than 60%
- Since July 2007, civilian deaths down more than 70%
- Since May 2007, coalition deaths down more than 70%
- Since June 2007, overall ethno-sectarian violence down 90%
- Since joint operations launched in January, 26 senior Al Qaeda officials captured
- 2/3 of Al Qaeda forces in Iraq wiped out
- Since 2003, more than 30,000 private sector companies registered
- Inflation fallen from 65% in 2007 to under 5% in 2008
- Government budget doubled in past 3 years
- 11 of 18 provinces under Iraqi control (including, most recently Anbar province, once thought to be a hopeless cause)
Don’t let anyone ever tell you that we’re losing this war, because the simple fact is that we absolutely are not. Whether it’s Barrack Obama or your friendly neighborhood Move-On.org activist, they are dead wrong. We are winning this war, we are bringing our enemies to their knees, and we are ALL safer because of it. We are winning this war, and I have the facts to prove it (and now you do too).
Of course, as General Patraeus has said, the advancements in Iraq are “fragile and reversible.” The situation is still an extremely dangerous one and it requires our continued focus and resolve. Hasty withdrawal could easily set Iraq on a collision course with civil war and even greater bloodshed than before. But the facts are that this war is winnable, we are inching ever closer to attaining that goal, and ultimate victory will reap countless dividends for the United States and the world at large.
***A brief election note:
Barrack Obama has called the war in Iraq a “dumb war,” he has voted against troop funding twice, and has stubbornly stated that upon becoming President he will immediately begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Barrack Obama is an idiot. In more academic diction, Barrack Obama clearly has little understanding of how this war on terrorism MUST be managed and his Presidency would spell doom for this country. I can’t tell you enough how dangerous this man is. Not only is he a socialist ideologue, but he’s a foreign policy lightweight and he CANNOT become President.
Also, I’m sure many of you want to hear about Sarah Palin. Well suffice to say that she’s a rockstar. She’s a true conservative, she’s tough-as-nails, and she represents a bright future for the Republican party. We still have yet to see how she does on her toes (i.e. debates), but I’ve got a hunch that she’s going to blow us away yet again.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
IF ANYONE'S LOOKING FOR A REASON TO VOTE MCCAIN....HERE IT IS
One can perhaps best grasp the radical liberalism of Barack Obama by reviewing his stance and various statements on abortion. Make no mistake, Senator Obama holds the most extremist pro-choice opinions of any Presidential candidate in the history of our country and he would certainly show no hesitation in imposing them were he to be elected. His views are appalling and downright inhumane, and I think one can most clearly realize this by examining one part in particular of the Senator’s abortion track record: his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. I’m not sure how any human with even the smallest of hearts could possibly hold Obama’s views on this issue, but he, an American Presidential nominee, does nonetheless. However, before we dive into that specific area, let’s first review a few of Mr. Obama’s general abortion stances:
- Opposed and voted against the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Opposed both federal and state level forms of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
- Told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that the first piece of legislation he would sign into law as President would be the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would:
o Codify Roe v. Wade
o Wipe out federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion
o Wipe out the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion (that’s right, tax payers would fund abortions)
- Has said he would never want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy
- When asked when he thought life began, Senator Obama responded that an answer would be “above [his] paygrade”
Those, my friends, are the positions of an unabashed abortion extremist who rather easily and unhesitatingly blurs the lines between protecting choice and outright infanticide. It’s sick, absolutely sick. And nothing is sicker than Obama’s aforementioned opposition to a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Every voter in America MUST know about this:
Our story begins in 2000 when a piece of legislation commonly referred to as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, or BAIPA, was presented before Congress. Essentially what the BAIPA did was declare that any baby who was entirely expelled from its mother, and who showed any signs of life, should be regarded as a legal person and be provided with necessary medical care and provision. The BAIPA would most commonly apply to situations of spontaneous premature labor or induced labor abortion. And of course the issue of induced labor abortion is the primary reason why both pro-lifers and pro-choicers perked their ears when this legislation was first proposed. An induced labor abortion is performed when a doctor inserts a medicine into the mother’s birth canal in order to artificially dilate the cervix. Once the cervix is fully dilated, the baby is birthed prematurely and is expected to die on its way out or at some point soon after it exits its mother. But of course, some of these babies survive the ordeal. In fact, in 2001 a Chicago-area hospital admitted that between 10 and 20 percent of babies aborted by this method survived. And so it is the innocent lives of these aborted, yet living and breathing babies, that the BAIPA proposed to protect in 2000. Immediately, pro-choice advocates like NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the legislation saying that it violated Roe v. Wade by ascribing rights to “pre-viable fetuses.” The bill passed the House 380-15, but was killed soon after in the Senate.
Obama’s introduction on the issue came in 2001 when a bill similar to the federal BAIPA was introduced in the Illinois State Senate. The Illinois bill was essentially identical to the one proposed on the national stage a few months earlier, except for the inclusion of one additional sentence: “a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” Barack Obama vehemently opposed the bill and even spoke out against it on the floor of the Senate, something that no other State Senator chose to do. Echoing the arguments of opposition to the 2000 BAIPA, Obama lambasted the bill as a violation of Roe v. Wade because it applied to “pre-viable fetuses.” His exact words:
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
Essentially he made the claim that babies born and breathing apart from their mothers are equal to “pre-viable fetuses” that deserve absolutely know rights as human beings. I am absolutely dumbfounded and enraged at the same time. But I digress. Needless to say, Obama voted present (equivalent to a no vote) on the bill that passed the Illinois Senate but died in House committee. In 2002, an almost identical string of events occurred, when a new state-level BAIPA was proposed in Illinois. The only difference this time was that Obama voted no instead of present.
Meanwhile, on the federal stage, a more promising national BAIPA emerged. Lawmakers attached what is known as a neutrality clause to the previous federal bill, stating that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” With the addition of this clause, the federal BAIPA was passed into law in 2002 with no dissenting vote in either the House of the Senate. Yes that’s right even the most left-leaning pro-choice advocates in Washington (Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc.) voted to adopt this important piece of legislation.
With the federal bill now passed, pro-life legislators in Illinois now had a template for a passable bill. Such a bill was consequently proposed in 2003. It essentially took the BAIPA that Obama had twice opposed and packaged it with an amendment that contained the exact language of the neutrality clause that was added to the federal bill. The new bill and its accompanying amendment were quickly referred to a committee that Obama chaired. The amendment was unanimously passed, but Obama subsequently led the committee’s democratic members in killing the bill in its entirety. This move completed Senator Obama’s perfect 3 – 0 record of opposing forms of Born-Alive Infant Protection.
Now its important to know that Barack has been recently claiming that the only reason he opposed the state legislation was because it did not contain a neutrality clause like the federal BAIPA, and thus it posed a threat to Roe v. Wade. He dishonestly chooses to ignore his chairmanship of the committee that in fact approved the state neutrality amendment and then subsequently killed the state BAIPA bill. Of course, as I just described, the truth is that Mr. Obama actually oversaw that inclusion of a neutrality clause, but voted against the Illinois BAIPA anyways. If you think it sounds like I’m accusing the Senator of lying, you’re exactly right. If you don’t believe me, listen to this: on August 11, 2008 the National Right to Life Committee uncovered and released legislative documents proving that Obama had in fact presided over the meetings that had transformed the state bill into a clone of the federal bill and then voted it down. These revelations are extremely damning of Obama’s previous statements and denials, but of course they have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. The truth is that Barack Obama has three times helped kill legislation that would protect a living baby, born from its mother, with breathing lungs and a beating heart.
Every time I think about this I am speechless, and you should be too. If this doesn’t stir in you an urgency to oppose an Obama presidency, I’m not sure what will. With the revelation of this information, Republicans should rally their base in full and fervent support of John McCain and Democrats should hang their heads low because they’re about to nominate a man who refuses to protect the life a newborn infant lucky enough to survive an abortion. This is scary stuff.
- Opposed and voted against the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Opposed both federal and state level forms of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
- Told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that the first piece of legislation he would sign into law as President would be the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would:
o Codify Roe v. Wade
o Wipe out federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion
o Wipe out the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion (that’s right, tax payers would fund abortions)
- Has said he would never want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy
- When asked when he thought life began, Senator Obama responded that an answer would be “above [his] paygrade”
Those, my friends, are the positions of an unabashed abortion extremist who rather easily and unhesitatingly blurs the lines between protecting choice and outright infanticide. It’s sick, absolutely sick. And nothing is sicker than Obama’s aforementioned opposition to a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Every voter in America MUST know about this:
Our story begins in 2000 when a piece of legislation commonly referred to as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, or BAIPA, was presented before Congress. Essentially what the BAIPA did was declare that any baby who was entirely expelled from its mother, and who showed any signs of life, should be regarded as a legal person and be provided with necessary medical care and provision. The BAIPA would most commonly apply to situations of spontaneous premature labor or induced labor abortion. And of course the issue of induced labor abortion is the primary reason why both pro-lifers and pro-choicers perked their ears when this legislation was first proposed. An induced labor abortion is performed when a doctor inserts a medicine into the mother’s birth canal in order to artificially dilate the cervix. Once the cervix is fully dilated, the baby is birthed prematurely and is expected to die on its way out or at some point soon after it exits its mother. But of course, some of these babies survive the ordeal. In fact, in 2001 a Chicago-area hospital admitted that between 10 and 20 percent of babies aborted by this method survived. And so it is the innocent lives of these aborted, yet living and breathing babies, that the BAIPA proposed to protect in 2000. Immediately, pro-choice advocates like NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the legislation saying that it violated Roe v. Wade by ascribing rights to “pre-viable fetuses.” The bill passed the House 380-15, but was killed soon after in the Senate.
Obama’s introduction on the issue came in 2001 when a bill similar to the federal BAIPA was introduced in the Illinois State Senate. The Illinois bill was essentially identical to the one proposed on the national stage a few months earlier, except for the inclusion of one additional sentence: “a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” Barack Obama vehemently opposed the bill and even spoke out against it on the floor of the Senate, something that no other State Senator chose to do. Echoing the arguments of opposition to the 2000 BAIPA, Obama lambasted the bill as a violation of Roe v. Wade because it applied to “pre-viable fetuses.” His exact words:
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
Essentially he made the claim that babies born and breathing apart from their mothers are equal to “pre-viable fetuses” that deserve absolutely know rights as human beings. I am absolutely dumbfounded and enraged at the same time. But I digress. Needless to say, Obama voted present (equivalent to a no vote) on the bill that passed the Illinois Senate but died in House committee. In 2002, an almost identical string of events occurred, when a new state-level BAIPA was proposed in Illinois. The only difference this time was that Obama voted no instead of present.
Meanwhile, on the federal stage, a more promising national BAIPA emerged. Lawmakers attached what is known as a neutrality clause to the previous federal bill, stating that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” With the addition of this clause, the federal BAIPA was passed into law in 2002 with no dissenting vote in either the House of the Senate. Yes that’s right even the most left-leaning pro-choice advocates in Washington (Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc.) voted to adopt this important piece of legislation.
With the federal bill now passed, pro-life legislators in Illinois now had a template for a passable bill. Such a bill was consequently proposed in 2003. It essentially took the BAIPA that Obama had twice opposed and packaged it with an amendment that contained the exact language of the neutrality clause that was added to the federal bill. The new bill and its accompanying amendment were quickly referred to a committee that Obama chaired. The amendment was unanimously passed, but Obama subsequently led the committee’s democratic members in killing the bill in its entirety. This move completed Senator Obama’s perfect 3 – 0 record of opposing forms of Born-Alive Infant Protection.
Now its important to know that Barack has been recently claiming that the only reason he opposed the state legislation was because it did not contain a neutrality clause like the federal BAIPA, and thus it posed a threat to Roe v. Wade. He dishonestly chooses to ignore his chairmanship of the committee that in fact approved the state neutrality amendment and then subsequently killed the state BAIPA bill. Of course, as I just described, the truth is that Mr. Obama actually oversaw that inclusion of a neutrality clause, but voted against the Illinois BAIPA anyways. If you think it sounds like I’m accusing the Senator of lying, you’re exactly right. If you don’t believe me, listen to this: on August 11, 2008 the National Right to Life Committee uncovered and released legislative documents proving that Obama had in fact presided over the meetings that had transformed the state bill into a clone of the federal bill and then voted it down. These revelations are extremely damning of Obama’s previous statements and denials, but of course they have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. The truth is that Barack Obama has three times helped kill legislation that would protect a living baby, born from its mother, with breathing lungs and a beating heart.
Every time I think about this I am speechless, and you should be too. If this doesn’t stir in you an urgency to oppose an Obama presidency, I’m not sure what will. With the revelation of this information, Republicans should rally their base in full and fervent support of John McCain and Democrats should hang their heads low because they’re about to nominate a man who refuses to protect the life a newborn infant lucky enough to survive an abortion. This is scary stuff.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A NEW KIND OF POLITICS...OH REALLY?
Responding today to criticisms of his groundbreaking support of properly inflated tires as a means of saving gas, Barack Obama had this to say of the McCain campaign:
“Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”
Now usually I would simply brush this off as common campaign rhetoric, but I can’t do it this time, I just can’t. I can’t do it because over the past few days it has been Barack Obama and his surrogates who have been indignantly complaining about the negativity the McCain campaign is supposedly beginning to push. They have said that classifying their dear leader as a celebrity on the level of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is a shameful return to “dirty politics” and “negative campaigning.” They say Barack Obama resents such bullying and will always be the candidate who takes the political high road. He is the candidate of change and he will never resort to this kind of disrespect and mud slinging. Barack Obama himself has said: “We've got to run a different kind of campaign. So we're not going to go around doing negative ads. We're going to keep it positive. We're going to talk about the issues."
So I guess saying that your opponent “take[s] pride in being ignorant” is a positive message. Funny, seems pretty disrespectful and condescending to me.
Folks, this man is a fraud, a hypocrite and a liar. He has heralded himself as something he is not and it’s about time the American people realize it and stop bowing at the altar of Obama. He is not a “new kind of politician” and he is not the “candidate of change.” He is a radical liberal ideologue, political opportunist, and inexperienced lawmaker who will do anything to gain power and wrest his agenda on the American people…his track record, personal background and rampant flip-flopping (for lack of a better term) proves it. This man must not win in November.
“Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”
Now usually I would simply brush this off as common campaign rhetoric, but I can’t do it this time, I just can’t. I can’t do it because over the past few days it has been Barack Obama and his surrogates who have been indignantly complaining about the negativity the McCain campaign is supposedly beginning to push. They have said that classifying their dear leader as a celebrity on the level of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is a shameful return to “dirty politics” and “negative campaigning.” They say Barack Obama resents such bullying and will always be the candidate who takes the political high road. He is the candidate of change and he will never resort to this kind of disrespect and mud slinging. Barack Obama himself has said: “We've got to run a different kind of campaign. So we're not going to go around doing negative ads. We're going to keep it positive. We're going to talk about the issues."
So I guess saying that your opponent “take[s] pride in being ignorant” is a positive message. Funny, seems pretty disrespectful and condescending to me.
Folks, this man is a fraud, a hypocrite and a liar. He has heralded himself as something he is not and it’s about time the American people realize it and stop bowing at the altar of Obama. He is not a “new kind of politician” and he is not the “candidate of change.” He is a radical liberal ideologue, political opportunist, and inexperienced lawmaker who will do anything to gain power and wrest his agenda on the American people…his track record, personal background and rampant flip-flopping (for lack of a better term) proves it. This man must not win in November.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS?
As I was perusing the news this morning, an article caught my eye. It bore the headline “President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour,” and of course I couldn’t resist such a relevantly titled piece. Turns out Dana Milbanks of the Washington Post had in fact written an extremely enjoyable article chronicling the ever-inflating ego one B. Hussein Obama. The bulk of the piece was pretty standard commentary on the seemingly unfettered arrogance of Senator Obama, but one particular quote, apparently overheard in one of his “adoration sessions” with Democratic lawmakers in DC, sent my jaw dropping to the floor. Speaking to a handful of his disciples, Obama said, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Yes, that’s right, Barack Obama is not merely a man, not merely a politician, not merely a presidential candidate…he is a self-proclaimed symbol of all that is good in America. Ladies and gentleman, in light of this profound declaration, I propose we immediately begin construction of the Obama Monument, to be built directly in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. I’m sure Barack wouldn’t mind footing the bill.
Needless to say I am absolutely disgusted with the Senator…once again. And in this case I’m fed up for two reasons:
1) First, and perhaps most obviously, I am appalled with how highly Mr. Obama thinks of himself. It really takes a special kind of arrogance to effectively declare oneself a symbol of really just about anything. An athlete declaring himself a symbol of athleticism, a teacher declaring herself a symbol of sound guidance, or a doctor declaring himself a symbol of modern medicine; all of these are guilty of unbridled arrogance. The athlete’s fan, the teacher’s student, or the doctor’s patient can certainly pour these praises on their heroes, but the recipient should NEVER be the deliverer of his own praise. And that’s exactly what Obama has repeatedly done. And that is exactly why I am so disgusted.
Many people in the coming days will surely recycle the accusation of “elitism” in light of these comments. But I would challenge that charge. I would go as far as to say that this far surpasses mere elitism. I would go as far as to say that this is a worship of self. This is narcissism at its worst. And mark my words, narcissists NEVER MAKE GOOD LEADERS. Who wants to follow and respect someone who is in love with himself? People, especially the American people, tend to commit their loyalty and service to a humble leader who places those he leads above himself and checks his ego at the door before each and every decision he makes. This is not Barack Obama.
2) Now the second reason for my disgust is the senator’s dubious assertion that somehow America has strayed from our “best traditions” and that we must work to retain them again. This part of Obama’s comments really gets my blood boiling. Why? Because I love this country and everything she stands for with a passion, and its becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama does not. Let’s just think about what the senator is implying in his statement. By saying that he represents the “possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he suggests that over time the American people have drifted away from the great ideals communicated by our founding fathers, and that what he proposes as a potential President would restore us to these lost values. The Senator is dead wrong and to best explain why let’s first look at what America’s best traditions truly are and then let’s look at what Senator Obama proposes. (This should make it pretty clear).
America’s best traditions: ardent stalwart and defender of liberty throughout the world, prosperity through free enterprise and entrepreneurship, innovation through ingenuity and hard work, self betterment through independence, perseverance, and determination, and a limited government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Obama proposals: surrender in Iraq, income redistribution, no oil exploration, socialized healthcare, support of the welfare state, increased government spending and regulation
Don’t really line up, do they? This discovery should make it clear that if anyone has abandoned America’s best traditions it’s Barack Obama and all those who subscribe to his policy proposals. Senator Obama has no clue what this country is all about, and it’s terrifying. If he believes that his socialist-liberal agenda is a return to all that is good in America, then an Obama presidency would undoubtedly defame the great name of the United States of America. I would agree to a certain extent that a great many Americans need to return to their roots and get back in touch with the values that have sustained us as a country, but I vehemently reject Senator Obama as the symbol of such a movement. In fact, it is people like Senator Obama who have pressed our country further from our founding ideals. And it is people like Senator Obama that must be stopped from leading America further from her noble callings.
Senator Obama, you are not a symbol of America’s return to our best traditions. If anything, you represent the antithesis of what this great country represents. You’re annoyingly arrogant and as President you would mark a dark era in this country’s history, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you remain a junior Senator from Illinois.
Needless to say I am absolutely disgusted with the Senator…once again. And in this case I’m fed up for two reasons:
1) First, and perhaps most obviously, I am appalled with how highly Mr. Obama thinks of himself. It really takes a special kind of arrogance to effectively declare oneself a symbol of really just about anything. An athlete declaring himself a symbol of athleticism, a teacher declaring herself a symbol of sound guidance, or a doctor declaring himself a symbol of modern medicine; all of these are guilty of unbridled arrogance. The athlete’s fan, the teacher’s student, or the doctor’s patient can certainly pour these praises on their heroes, but the recipient should NEVER be the deliverer of his own praise. And that’s exactly what Obama has repeatedly done. And that is exactly why I am so disgusted.
Many people in the coming days will surely recycle the accusation of “elitism” in light of these comments. But I would challenge that charge. I would go as far as to say that this far surpasses mere elitism. I would go as far as to say that this is a worship of self. This is narcissism at its worst. And mark my words, narcissists NEVER MAKE GOOD LEADERS. Who wants to follow and respect someone who is in love with himself? People, especially the American people, tend to commit their loyalty and service to a humble leader who places those he leads above himself and checks his ego at the door before each and every decision he makes. This is not Barack Obama.
2) Now the second reason for my disgust is the senator’s dubious assertion that somehow America has strayed from our “best traditions” and that we must work to retain them again. This part of Obama’s comments really gets my blood boiling. Why? Because I love this country and everything she stands for with a passion, and its becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama does not. Let’s just think about what the senator is implying in his statement. By saying that he represents the “possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he suggests that over time the American people have drifted away from the great ideals communicated by our founding fathers, and that what he proposes as a potential President would restore us to these lost values. The Senator is dead wrong and to best explain why let’s first look at what America’s best traditions truly are and then let’s look at what Senator Obama proposes. (This should make it pretty clear).
America’s best traditions: ardent stalwart and defender of liberty throughout the world, prosperity through free enterprise and entrepreneurship, innovation through ingenuity and hard work, self betterment through independence, perseverance, and determination, and a limited government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Obama proposals: surrender in Iraq, income redistribution, no oil exploration, socialized healthcare, support of the welfare state, increased government spending and regulation
Don’t really line up, do they? This discovery should make it clear that if anyone has abandoned America’s best traditions it’s Barack Obama and all those who subscribe to his policy proposals. Senator Obama has no clue what this country is all about, and it’s terrifying. If he believes that his socialist-liberal agenda is a return to all that is good in America, then an Obama presidency would undoubtedly defame the great name of the United States of America. I would agree to a certain extent that a great many Americans need to return to their roots and get back in touch with the values that have sustained us as a country, but I vehemently reject Senator Obama as the symbol of such a movement. In fact, it is people like Senator Obama who have pressed our country further from our founding ideals. And it is people like Senator Obama that must be stopped from leading America further from her noble callings.
Senator Obama, you are not a symbol of America’s return to our best traditions. If anything, you represent the antithesis of what this great country represents. You’re annoyingly arrogant and as President you would mark a dark era in this country’s history, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you remain a junior Senator from Illinois.
Monday, July 28, 2008
WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS WRONG FOR AMERICA ---- TAXES
- B.H. Obama’s Proposal:
o It is utterly important to begin by understanding the basis for the freshman senator’s tax proposals. If you visit the website of change, aka barackobama.com, you will find that Obama declares one of his landmark goals to be to “restore fairness to the tax code.” Obama operates under the notion that in this day and age, the way in which Americans pay taxes is horrifically unfair. Thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts, Obama believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes and the middle and lower classes pay too much. This concept of social injustice provides the inspiration for the tax proposals we are about to discuss, and yes, such inspiration is completely flawed and, quite frankly, pretty disgusting (but we’ll talk about that soon enough). For now, let’s take a look at the details of the Barackonomics proposals.
o In his mission to bring wealthy Americans to tax justice, Obama would begin by allowing the top 2 rates of income taxation to return to 36% and 39.6% respectively. 36 and 40 cents of ever dollar the individuals and families in these tax brackets earn will be going to the government. But don’t worry, they’re rich so they can afford it, and that’s all that matters.
o Next up, Obama would remove the cap on the FICA tax (social security), making it applicable to all income, not just earnings under $102,000. Now to better understand such a just and fair proposal, it’s important to go through a brief refresher of how the Social Security tax works. Currently the tax is only enforced on the first $102,000 an individual earns. In other words, say a well-to-do accountant in New York City earns $200,000. Well, only the first $102,000 of that amount would be taxed for Social Security. The remaining $82,000 would be left untouched. In terms of rates, the self-employed pay 12.4% up to the $102,000 limit, while the regularly employed pay 6.2%, an amount matched by their employers. Under the glorious reign of a President B. Hussein Obama, the $102,000 cap I speak of would magically, yet fairly, disappear. All of the $200,000 our New York City account earned, not just the first $102,000, would be taxed. But again, it’s alright folks, the accountant’s wealthy, so we can tax him more and not feel bad about it.
o My friends the fun doesn’t stop there! Next on the Obama agenda would be a near doubling of the capital gains tax. Obama would raise the tax rate from the current 15% to an astounding 28%. Now for those of you who are not particularly familiar with the cap gains tax, it’s actually pretty simple. The capital gains tax, unlike Barrack Obama, is exactly what it says it is. And that is a tax on any profit you might reap from the capital you own and sell. What exactly is capital? Well, the most common forms of capital assets are stocks, bonds, and real estate. So to use another reader-friendly example, say a consultant here in Dallas is an avid investor and owns a handful of stock in AT&T Inc. Well one day our wise investor decides to sell this AT&T stock and collect his profit. Under the current cap gains tax, this individual would fork over 15% of the profits he reaps from that sale to the government. Under the Obama crusade for fairness, that same investor would in fact be forced to hand over almost 30% of the profits he gains from his investments. But don’t worry, because he can afford to invest, he’s probably rich, so increased taxes are definitely justified.
o Ok, that’s it. No more tax hikes….just kidding!! Of course there’s more!! Next on the list we have a proposed doubling of the tax on dividends. President Barrack would raise that tax rate from the current 15% to a whopping 30%. Once again, let me provide a brief refresher on what exactly the tax on dividends entails. When corporations and companies earn a profit, they can do one of two things. They can reinvest the money into the company or they can pay it to the company’s shareholders as a dividend. So a tax on those dividends means that if a small business owner in Alaska decides to invest in his buddy’s start up company, any money he earns as a shareholder will be taxed. Today, 15% of any reward that our Alaskan small business owner receives for investing in a profitable company will be going to the government. However, if the Fairness Express ever takes flight, President Obama would force him to hand over two times what he does now. But come on, the Alaskan guy has to be rich, so it’s only fair.
o Whew.., I think we’re done now. At this time, feel free to take a stretch break, grab a drink of water, lower your blood pressure, count to ten, and then read on.
- The Problem:
o Removing the cap…as if a tax hike of such monumental proportions isn’t enough, Obama’s proposed FICA increase would weaken some of the fundamental tenets of U.S. capitalism and enterprise: entrepreneurship and personal productivity. The removal of the Social Security cap would effectively punish the most ambitious and industrious people in the labor force. As workers earn more money and achieve greater success in their profession, more and more is withheld from their paycheck. And on top of this attack on individual success, employers are going to be less and less willing to award salaries greater than $102,000 as they’re forced to fork over 6.2% of the raise. Incentives are a hugely important and time-tested component of any capitalistic economy, and Obama’s proposed FICA increase would undoubtedly undermine the incentive to create new jobs, new wealth, and higher incomes.
o The cap gains disaster…with the stock market already deep into bear territory and the real estate market experiencing an historic slump, a near doubling of the capital gains tax would by far be the most pernicious of Obama’s tax proposals. When we look at the three primary consequences of such an increase, this bleak reality becomes clear:
§ Damage to the stock markets: Such a drastic increase in the tax on capital gains would wrest drastic and devastating results on capital, real estate, and equity markets. In the event of an Obama presidency, no one in their right mind would want to hold onto stock or real estate, knowing they would have to pay 28% of their profit in taxes, compared to today’s 15%. An impending Obama presidency would trigger mass selling, causing widespread panic in the stock market. The mere prospect of an Obama presidency and resulting cap gains hike would easily send the already ailing stock market into a full fledged crash. And assuredly the real estate market, in perhaps the worst condition it has ever seen, will fair no better.
§ Revenue drop: One of the primary purposes of tax hikes is the reduction of the deficit through increased government revenue (more taxes = more money for the government). Now Barrack Obama would like for you to believe that his tax increases, including the cap gains hike, would accomplish just this. But as it turns out, Barrack would be wrong. History tells us that capital gains tax increases actually do not increase revenue. In fact, it appears that such measures do exactly the opposite. Thus far the cap gains tax has only been increased once, in 1986. And what was the result? The result was a drop in revenues by 44% over the following 3 years! The capital gains tax has been cut a total of 3 times since its inception: 1981, 1997, 2003. Following these cuts, revenues rose by 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively! These numbers are astonishing, but the reasoning is quite clear: people are more willing to sell stock and real estate when they know less of their profit will be taken from them. And greater capital asset turnover means more money for the government.
§ Cut in private investment: Over half of all adults in this country own stock in some form or another, and in 2006, 8.5 million people paid capital gains taxes. These private investors would undoubtedly be devastated by Obama’s crushing increase. Again we must ask the question, who in the world would want to continue to invest when they will never see a third of what they make? Experts estimate that Obama’s cap gains proposals would eliminate billions of dollars in private investment, resulting in a horrendous reduction in economic growth per year. The stock market and private investment are yet another fundamental and integral part of our economic system that Barrack Obama would gravely endanger.
o And don’t forget dividends…just as a capital gains tax hike would discourage private investment, Obama’s proposed doubling of the tax on dividends would dissuade individuals from investing in job-creating companies. Again, who would want to continue putting money into companies knowing that a third of any money they get from such an endeavor would go straight to the government? American companies rely on investments from everyday Americans in order to expand their enterprises and sustain the kind of growth that has the power to create jobs and provide higher salaries for employees. Any increase in the tax on money these companies return to investors will surely have a negative impact on such growth. But doubling the tax?! That would discourage investors in the worst way and have disastrous consequences on companies that will be forced to make cuts themselves (i.e. salary, personnel, new positions, etc.)
o It’s not fair!.... Obama supporter and former VP candidate John Edwards explained Barrack’s tax philosophy better than I ever could when he dubiously claimed, “two Americas...one privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks." Liberals often tout this notion of injustice as they campaign for middle class votes, and it is this highly polarizing and flawed belief in “two Americas” that define Obama’s proposals. But is he right? Is America really that unfair? You judge for yourself:
§ The Do-Nothing Wealthy Class that Doesn’t Pay Enough Taxes
· Richest 1% earn 16% of total national income but pays about 1/3 of our federal income tax
· Richest 10% earn 33% of total national income but pays about 2/3 of our federal income tax
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households (census burea divides households into quintiles when calculating income inequality) perform 1/3 of all labor in the economy
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households have most educated and productive workers
§ The Oppressed Lower Classes that Bear Our National Tax Burden
· Poorest 50% earn13% of total national income and pays less than 3 % of our federal income tax
So remind me again, Senator Obama, why do we need to raise the top 2 rates of income taxation, uncap the FICA tax, increase the capital gains tax, and double the tax on dividends? Because the current tax levels aren’t fair for the lower classes? Because the current tax levels favor a bunch of lazy rich folks? Because the current tax levels are oppressive to lower classes? Interesting…
o When they’re added up, all of Obama’s tax proposals could easily amount to the largest tax increase this country has every seen. Now that is change that I can not and will not believe in.
o It is utterly important to begin by understanding the basis for the freshman senator’s tax proposals. If you visit the website of change, aka barackobama.com, you will find that Obama declares one of his landmark goals to be to “restore fairness to the tax code.” Obama operates under the notion that in this day and age, the way in which Americans pay taxes is horrifically unfair. Thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts, Obama believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes and the middle and lower classes pay too much. This concept of social injustice provides the inspiration for the tax proposals we are about to discuss, and yes, such inspiration is completely flawed and, quite frankly, pretty disgusting (but we’ll talk about that soon enough). For now, let’s take a look at the details of the Barackonomics proposals.
o In his mission to bring wealthy Americans to tax justice, Obama would begin by allowing the top 2 rates of income taxation to return to 36% and 39.6% respectively. 36 and 40 cents of ever dollar the individuals and families in these tax brackets earn will be going to the government. But don’t worry, they’re rich so they can afford it, and that’s all that matters.
o Next up, Obama would remove the cap on the FICA tax (social security), making it applicable to all income, not just earnings under $102,000. Now to better understand such a just and fair proposal, it’s important to go through a brief refresher of how the Social Security tax works. Currently the tax is only enforced on the first $102,000 an individual earns. In other words, say a well-to-do accountant in New York City earns $200,000. Well, only the first $102,000 of that amount would be taxed for Social Security. The remaining $82,000 would be left untouched. In terms of rates, the self-employed pay 12.4% up to the $102,000 limit, while the regularly employed pay 6.2%, an amount matched by their employers. Under the glorious reign of a President B. Hussein Obama, the $102,000 cap I speak of would magically, yet fairly, disappear. All of the $200,000 our New York City account earned, not just the first $102,000, would be taxed. But again, it’s alright folks, the accountant’s wealthy, so we can tax him more and not feel bad about it.
o My friends the fun doesn’t stop there! Next on the Obama agenda would be a near doubling of the capital gains tax. Obama would raise the tax rate from the current 15% to an astounding 28%. Now for those of you who are not particularly familiar with the cap gains tax, it’s actually pretty simple. The capital gains tax, unlike Barrack Obama, is exactly what it says it is. And that is a tax on any profit you might reap from the capital you own and sell. What exactly is capital? Well, the most common forms of capital assets are stocks, bonds, and real estate. So to use another reader-friendly example, say a consultant here in Dallas is an avid investor and owns a handful of stock in AT&T Inc. Well one day our wise investor decides to sell this AT&T stock and collect his profit. Under the current cap gains tax, this individual would fork over 15% of the profits he reaps from that sale to the government. Under the Obama crusade for fairness, that same investor would in fact be forced to hand over almost 30% of the profits he gains from his investments. But don’t worry, because he can afford to invest, he’s probably rich, so increased taxes are definitely justified.
o Ok, that’s it. No more tax hikes….just kidding!! Of course there’s more!! Next on the list we have a proposed doubling of the tax on dividends. President Barrack would raise that tax rate from the current 15% to a whopping 30%. Once again, let me provide a brief refresher on what exactly the tax on dividends entails. When corporations and companies earn a profit, they can do one of two things. They can reinvest the money into the company or they can pay it to the company’s shareholders as a dividend. So a tax on those dividends means that if a small business owner in Alaska decides to invest in his buddy’s start up company, any money he earns as a shareholder will be taxed. Today, 15% of any reward that our Alaskan small business owner receives for investing in a profitable company will be going to the government. However, if the Fairness Express ever takes flight, President Obama would force him to hand over two times what he does now. But come on, the Alaskan guy has to be rich, so it’s only fair.
o Whew.., I think we’re done now. At this time, feel free to take a stretch break, grab a drink of water, lower your blood pressure, count to ten, and then read on.
- The Problem:
o Removing the cap…as if a tax hike of such monumental proportions isn’t enough, Obama’s proposed FICA increase would weaken some of the fundamental tenets of U.S. capitalism and enterprise: entrepreneurship and personal productivity. The removal of the Social Security cap would effectively punish the most ambitious and industrious people in the labor force. As workers earn more money and achieve greater success in their profession, more and more is withheld from their paycheck. And on top of this attack on individual success, employers are going to be less and less willing to award salaries greater than $102,000 as they’re forced to fork over 6.2% of the raise. Incentives are a hugely important and time-tested component of any capitalistic economy, and Obama’s proposed FICA increase would undoubtedly undermine the incentive to create new jobs, new wealth, and higher incomes.
o The cap gains disaster…with the stock market already deep into bear territory and the real estate market experiencing an historic slump, a near doubling of the capital gains tax would by far be the most pernicious of Obama’s tax proposals. When we look at the three primary consequences of such an increase, this bleak reality becomes clear:
§ Damage to the stock markets: Such a drastic increase in the tax on capital gains would wrest drastic and devastating results on capital, real estate, and equity markets. In the event of an Obama presidency, no one in their right mind would want to hold onto stock or real estate, knowing they would have to pay 28% of their profit in taxes, compared to today’s 15%. An impending Obama presidency would trigger mass selling, causing widespread panic in the stock market. The mere prospect of an Obama presidency and resulting cap gains hike would easily send the already ailing stock market into a full fledged crash. And assuredly the real estate market, in perhaps the worst condition it has ever seen, will fair no better.
§ Revenue drop: One of the primary purposes of tax hikes is the reduction of the deficit through increased government revenue (more taxes = more money for the government). Now Barrack Obama would like for you to believe that his tax increases, including the cap gains hike, would accomplish just this. But as it turns out, Barrack would be wrong. History tells us that capital gains tax increases actually do not increase revenue. In fact, it appears that such measures do exactly the opposite. Thus far the cap gains tax has only been increased once, in 1986. And what was the result? The result was a drop in revenues by 44% over the following 3 years! The capital gains tax has been cut a total of 3 times since its inception: 1981, 1997, 2003. Following these cuts, revenues rose by 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively! These numbers are astonishing, but the reasoning is quite clear: people are more willing to sell stock and real estate when they know less of their profit will be taken from them. And greater capital asset turnover means more money for the government.
§ Cut in private investment: Over half of all adults in this country own stock in some form or another, and in 2006, 8.5 million people paid capital gains taxes. These private investors would undoubtedly be devastated by Obama’s crushing increase. Again we must ask the question, who in the world would want to continue to invest when they will never see a third of what they make? Experts estimate that Obama’s cap gains proposals would eliminate billions of dollars in private investment, resulting in a horrendous reduction in economic growth per year. The stock market and private investment are yet another fundamental and integral part of our economic system that Barrack Obama would gravely endanger.
o And don’t forget dividends…just as a capital gains tax hike would discourage private investment, Obama’s proposed doubling of the tax on dividends would dissuade individuals from investing in job-creating companies. Again, who would want to continue putting money into companies knowing that a third of any money they get from such an endeavor would go straight to the government? American companies rely on investments from everyday Americans in order to expand their enterprises and sustain the kind of growth that has the power to create jobs and provide higher salaries for employees. Any increase in the tax on money these companies return to investors will surely have a negative impact on such growth. But doubling the tax?! That would discourage investors in the worst way and have disastrous consequences on companies that will be forced to make cuts themselves (i.e. salary, personnel, new positions, etc.)
o It’s not fair!.... Obama supporter and former VP candidate John Edwards explained Barrack’s tax philosophy better than I ever could when he dubiously claimed, “two Americas...one privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks." Liberals often tout this notion of injustice as they campaign for middle class votes, and it is this highly polarizing and flawed belief in “two Americas” that define Obama’s proposals. But is he right? Is America really that unfair? You judge for yourself:
§ The Do-Nothing Wealthy Class that Doesn’t Pay Enough Taxes
· Richest 1% earn 16% of total national income but pays about 1/3 of our federal income tax
· Richest 10% earn 33% of total national income but pays about 2/3 of our federal income tax
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households (census burea divides households into quintiles when calculating income inequality) perform 1/3 of all labor in the economy
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households have most educated and productive workers
§ The Oppressed Lower Classes that Bear Our National Tax Burden
· Poorest 50% earn13% of total national income and pays less than 3 % of our federal income tax
So remind me again, Senator Obama, why do we need to raise the top 2 rates of income taxation, uncap the FICA tax, increase the capital gains tax, and double the tax on dividends? Because the current tax levels aren’t fair for the lower classes? Because the current tax levels favor a bunch of lazy rich folks? Because the current tax levels are oppressive to lower classes? Interesting…
o When they’re added up, all of Obama’s tax proposals could easily amount to the largest tax increase this country has every seen. Now that is change that I can not and will not believe in.
Friday, July 25, 2008
EXCUSE ME SENATOR?
Yesterday Senator Obama delivered a speech before an adoring audience in Berlin, Germany. Surprisingly I have very few complaints with the substance of his statements. He played it fairly safe and actually found room for some pretty standard conservative tenants. That said there was one part of the speech that just about ruined it for me. After his typical “this is our time” declaration, Obama said something that infuriated me:
“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”
Really Senator? Where to you get off traveling to a foreign country and apologizing for supposed American inequities and trespasses? Now I certainly don’t disagree that throughout the course of U.S. history, we as a freedom-loving people have made a few mistakes in extending equality to all people. To do so I would have to reject events and eras like the trail of tears, the civil rights movement, and Japanese internment. Of course we’ve made mistakes, but why do we need to travel the world preaching those mistakes? Discuss them here, debate them here, learn from them here, but don’t go to Europe and talk about how we’ve failed the world and not lived up to our “best intentions.” Mr. Obama, as a U.S. Senator and possible commander-in-chief you are one of the most recognizable ambassadors of this great country. Thus, it is your job to serve her well and proclaim her greatness to all you address. It is not, nor will it ever be you job to explain what you see as this country’s shortfalls to throngs of foreigners who hang on your every word. Here’s what I would suggest you say on your next Euro-Tour:
I know my country to be the greatest in the world. Since our inception, we have been an unyielding bulwark for liberty and a shining symbol of equality in the global community. As a great American who years ago visited this city once said, American always has been and always will be a shining city on a hill.
“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”
Really Senator? Where to you get off traveling to a foreign country and apologizing for supposed American inequities and trespasses? Now I certainly don’t disagree that throughout the course of U.S. history, we as a freedom-loving people have made a few mistakes in extending equality to all people. To do so I would have to reject events and eras like the trail of tears, the civil rights movement, and Japanese internment. Of course we’ve made mistakes, but why do we need to travel the world preaching those mistakes? Discuss them here, debate them here, learn from them here, but don’t go to Europe and talk about how we’ve failed the world and not lived up to our “best intentions.” Mr. Obama, as a U.S. Senator and possible commander-in-chief you are one of the most recognizable ambassadors of this great country. Thus, it is your job to serve her well and proclaim her greatness to all you address. It is not, nor will it ever be you job to explain what you see as this country’s shortfalls to throngs of foreigners who hang on your every word. Here’s what I would suggest you say on your next Euro-Tour:
I know my country to be the greatest in the world. Since our inception, we have been an unyielding bulwark for liberty and a shining symbol of equality in the global community. As a great American who years ago visited this city once said, American always has been and always will be a shining city on a hill.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS WRONG FOR AMERICA --- HEALTHCARE
- B.H. Obama’s proposal:
o The junior senator from Illinois proposes a “new national health plan” offered to all Americans, including the 47 million who are currently uninsured. This brand spanking new public healthcare plan would offer guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits (similar to those given to U.S. Congressman), affordable premiums, and federal subsidies for families who don’t qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still require financial assistance. Everyone, and I mean everyone (see illegal immigrant comments below), will be insured.
o Now for those of you who aren’t exactly into the whole nationalized, government-controlled healthcare idea, Obama still provides you with the option of purchasing your own private insurance plan. To do this, Obama would create the “National Health Insurance Exchange,” a so-called “watchdog group” that would spearhead the effort to reform the private insurance market. How would the Insurance Exchange go about reforming private insurance? Well through increased government regulation of course! Obama’s Insurance Exchange would create “rules and standards” so that private insurance plans are suitably fair, affordable, and accessible. Under the watchful eye of the Exchange, insurance plans would be mandated to be “at least as generous as the new public plan,” and their differences would be made accessible to the masses.
o Now for those of you just starving for even more good old fashioned government control of the private sector, Obama would give you yet another spoon-full. Obama strongly proposes that any employer seen as not making a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of health coverage for employees would be forced to fork over a “percentage of payroll towards the cost of the national plan.”
o To summarize: The omnipotence of the U.S. Government combined with the angelic magnanimity of Sir Obama will affectively save our tanking healthcare system.
- The Problems:
o Supply and Demand my friends….with the 47 million uninsured Americans all of the sudden covered by Obama’s public plan, the demand for healthcare would absolutely skyrocket. Armed with their new nationalized insurance plans, millions of Americans demanding care would flood medical facilities in droves. Clinics and doctor’s offices would start to look like today’s emergency rooms. Of course, the 3 hour wait and tension headache are free of charge. But as the number of patients increases, the supply of doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics won’t be able to keep up. In fact, as Dick Morris points out in his newest book Fleeced, “the cost controls that Obama will impose will probably limit the income of doctors,” which will directly decrease the number of young Americans who consider entering the medical field. And here’s the real kicker…as we certainly have learned with the recent energy crisis, when demand surpasses supply, PRICES WILL GO UP. Yes, that’s right, prices will go up. Where’s the solution there?
o Cart Before the Horse….it’s important to remember Obama’s proposed order of action in slaying the healthcare giant: expand coverage first, cut costs second. But wait, didn’t we just decide that Obama’s expanded coverage will actually boost costs? And wouldn’t higher prices make it much harder to cut costs? The answer, of course, is yes and yes. By expanding coverage before cutting costs, Obama effectively would dig himself into a hole of monumental proportions. The high prices of today, compounded by the high prices that result from the backfiring of a nationalized plan, would pave the way for some pretty radical cost cutting measures. And once again, Dick Morris comes through with what is, frighteningly enough, the most reasonable theory: rationing. Essentially what this would provide for are federal bureaucrats who would analyze any medical procedure you might require for cost-benefit, and then have the power to veto that procedure if deemed necessary. Yes, that’s right, bureaucrats doling out medical procedures. It happens in Europe and Canada (where they follow a very Obamaesque socialized system, much to their own detriment) and it could certainly happen in America under Obama’s nationalized plan.
o What about the illegals?....on his website, Obama cites the statistic that there are 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured. What Obama does not note is that about 10 million of those Americans are in fact illegal aliens. Under his heroic national healthcare crusade to insure “all Americans,” Obama would make it far too possible for you, a law-abiding and tax-paying American, to wait behind a long line of illegal aliens for a medical procedure you need.
o A closer look at the 47 million….Obama nobly touts the plight of the 47 million uninsured Americans as the impetus for his nationalized healthcare reform. In tones that smack of the welfare state, Obama seeks to throw these people on the back of Uncle Sam and provide for each and every of their healthcare needs. But just who exactly are these people? Lets take a look:
- 10 million illegal aliens (as noted in above point)
- 15 million who are eligible for Medicaid but don’t bother to apply (yes,that’s right, 1/3 of uninsured Americans could easily be insured if they would just apply)
- 15 million adults whose children are eligible for free insurance
- 10 million childless adults
o For all you visual learners….if you want a good picture of what an Obama-inspired healthcare plan would look like, take a jog across the pond, jump on one of those nice double-decker buses, and stop by St. Thomas’s Hospital in London. Talk to a doctor there (as I actually have) and see what he has to say about socialized healthcare. Then come back to the states and vote McCain.
o This is certainly change that I can not and will not believe in.
o The junior senator from Illinois proposes a “new national health plan” offered to all Americans, including the 47 million who are currently uninsured. This brand spanking new public healthcare plan would offer guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits (similar to those given to U.S. Congressman), affordable premiums, and federal subsidies for families who don’t qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still require financial assistance. Everyone, and I mean everyone (see illegal immigrant comments below), will be insured.
o Now for those of you who aren’t exactly into the whole nationalized, government-controlled healthcare idea, Obama still provides you with the option of purchasing your own private insurance plan. To do this, Obama would create the “National Health Insurance Exchange,” a so-called “watchdog group” that would spearhead the effort to reform the private insurance market. How would the Insurance Exchange go about reforming private insurance? Well through increased government regulation of course! Obama’s Insurance Exchange would create “rules and standards” so that private insurance plans are suitably fair, affordable, and accessible. Under the watchful eye of the Exchange, insurance plans would be mandated to be “at least as generous as the new public plan,” and their differences would be made accessible to the masses.
o Now for those of you just starving for even more good old fashioned government control of the private sector, Obama would give you yet another spoon-full. Obama strongly proposes that any employer seen as not making a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of health coverage for employees would be forced to fork over a “percentage of payroll towards the cost of the national plan.”
o To summarize: The omnipotence of the U.S. Government combined with the angelic magnanimity of Sir Obama will affectively save our tanking healthcare system.
- The Problems:
o Supply and Demand my friends….with the 47 million uninsured Americans all of the sudden covered by Obama’s public plan, the demand for healthcare would absolutely skyrocket. Armed with their new nationalized insurance plans, millions of Americans demanding care would flood medical facilities in droves. Clinics and doctor’s offices would start to look like today’s emergency rooms. Of course, the 3 hour wait and tension headache are free of charge. But as the number of patients increases, the supply of doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics won’t be able to keep up. In fact, as Dick Morris points out in his newest book Fleeced, “the cost controls that Obama will impose will probably limit the income of doctors,” which will directly decrease the number of young Americans who consider entering the medical field. And here’s the real kicker…as we certainly have learned with the recent energy crisis, when demand surpasses supply, PRICES WILL GO UP. Yes, that’s right, prices will go up. Where’s the solution there?
o Cart Before the Horse….it’s important to remember Obama’s proposed order of action in slaying the healthcare giant: expand coverage first, cut costs second. But wait, didn’t we just decide that Obama’s expanded coverage will actually boost costs? And wouldn’t higher prices make it much harder to cut costs? The answer, of course, is yes and yes. By expanding coverage before cutting costs, Obama effectively would dig himself into a hole of monumental proportions. The high prices of today, compounded by the high prices that result from the backfiring of a nationalized plan, would pave the way for some pretty radical cost cutting measures. And once again, Dick Morris comes through with what is, frighteningly enough, the most reasonable theory: rationing. Essentially what this would provide for are federal bureaucrats who would analyze any medical procedure you might require for cost-benefit, and then have the power to veto that procedure if deemed necessary. Yes, that’s right, bureaucrats doling out medical procedures. It happens in Europe and Canada (where they follow a very Obamaesque socialized system, much to their own detriment) and it could certainly happen in America under Obama’s nationalized plan.
o What about the illegals?....on his website, Obama cites the statistic that there are 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured. What Obama does not note is that about 10 million of those Americans are in fact illegal aliens. Under his heroic national healthcare crusade to insure “all Americans,” Obama would make it far too possible for you, a law-abiding and tax-paying American, to wait behind a long line of illegal aliens for a medical procedure you need.
o A closer look at the 47 million….Obama nobly touts the plight of the 47 million uninsured Americans as the impetus for his nationalized healthcare reform. In tones that smack of the welfare state, Obama seeks to throw these people on the back of Uncle Sam and provide for each and every of their healthcare needs. But just who exactly are these people? Lets take a look:
- 10 million illegal aliens (as noted in above point)
- 15 million who are eligible for Medicaid but don’t bother to apply (yes,that’s right, 1/3 of uninsured Americans could easily be insured if they would just apply)
- 15 million adults whose children are eligible for free insurance
- 10 million childless adults
o For all you visual learners….if you want a good picture of what an Obama-inspired healthcare plan would look like, take a jog across the pond, jump on one of those nice double-decker buses, and stop by St. Thomas’s Hospital in London. Talk to a doctor there (as I actually have) and see what he has to say about socialized healthcare. Then come back to the states and vote McCain.
o This is certainly change that I can not and will not believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)