Liberals really have a hard time understanding the definition of basic words.
Lately, Obama’s campaign has been trying to equate his statement about spreading the wealth with Sarah Patin’s Alaska oil plan. I heard the same line from Alan Colmes at least a week ago…maybe longer.
What is the difference? One is spreading the income wealth and one is sharing the wealth from a state owned natural resource..
Oil in the ground on government owned land does not belong to anyone. The government often takes a cut from the oil companies when they drill. Usually, the government uses that money on government programs. Typical politicians use that money as hand outs to win favor with certain constituents. What Sarah Palin did is share that revenue with all the people of Alaska. She didn’t hand it out to those making below a certain level. She didn’t spend it on someone’s pet project. It wasn’t about redistribution…it was distribution.
Barack Obama wants to take income that someone else has earned and redistribute it.
There is a HUGE difference. Redistribution is not sharing. It is stealing and pandering.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on October 31st, 2008
While in Chicgo, Obama was interested in “community organizing”. In other words, he wanted organized grievances. He was in the business of demanding services from the government.
I have not heard a single word from Obama about his stance on fighting crime. His issues listed on his web site does not have a “crime” category. It has an “Urban Policy” category which speaks of preventing terrorism. Maybe he has something there, but it is not obvious where to find it.
In contrast, John McCain has a issues category dedicated to fighting crime and what he feels in the federal governments role in supporting law local law enforcement.
Here is a stunning statistic from Obama’s adopted home town: Chicago has had 426 murders this year (LINK). That is about the same number as deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (LINK). Obama is silent on an issue that is killing thousands of young men every year.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on October 30th, 2008
Michael Barone has a great piece on the history of the New Deal and what the consequences of starting a new “New Deal”
The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral.
About Obama’s new deal:
Obama seems determined to follow policies better suited to freezing the economy in place than to promoting economic growth. Higher taxes on high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital-gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around, but at least the rich wouldn’t have it — reminiscent of the Puritan sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk. Moves toward protectionism like Hoover’s (Roosevelt had the good sense to promote free trade). National health insurance that threatens to lead to rationing and to stifle innovation. Promoting unionization by abolishing secret ballot union elections.
Read the whole think here:(LINK)
Al Franken has been one of the nastiest candidates I can remember. Maybe he thinks he is funny, but he come across of mean and void of substance. Now, the guy who wrote a book calling just about every conservative he could think of liars is whining that he is being attacked unfairly. (LINK)
Is that leadership? Republicans are constantly labelled racist, Nazi or just plain evil…yet this cry baby whines that he is being critized by a cartoon.
I guess your not good enough, your not smart enough, and darn it…people just don’t like you.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on October 29th, 2008
Let’s say global warming is real and is caused by CO2 (it’s not, but I’m trying to make a point).
Our liberal friends tell us that we should be switching to alternative renewable sources. One of their favorite solutions is solar power. Liberals don’t see the world like conservatives do. They look at problems and solutions. Conservatives see trade-offs.
With regards to solar power, liberals look beyond the trade-offs that solar power is extremely inefficient, costly and an extremely poor use of land to make the argument that we need to do it to stop global warming. OK…let’s concede another huge point to them for argument sake.
A new study suggest that the current production of solar panels won’t do anything to combat global warming. A chemical called nitrogen triflouride (NF3) used in the production of the panels is 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this gas is collecting in the atmosphere. (LINK) The dubious science used to predict global warming by CO2 also predicts that solar power will give no relief to global climate change because the NF3 pollution will offset any reductions. Instead of CO2 causing a green house effect, NF3 will. At least CO2 is good for plants and crop production. I’m thinking NF3 is good for nothing.
So even if you look beyond the trade-offs, it can be argued that there are no benefits.
Andrew Dinniman is a Democrat from West Chester, PA running for re-election as a State Senator in the 19th District. In a debate with his challenger, Dinniman claims to have voted with the Republicans 60% of the time. He says,
“I do that,” he said, “because I vote what I feel is in the interest of this county.”
Is he pandering or does he agree with me that Republicans have better policy positions than Democrats?
I think the answer to that question is “pandering”.
Andrew Dinniman voted for a $28.3 billion dollar state budget. He voted for a budget that was knowingly out of balance. This budget will increase the states already ballooning deficit.
On the most fundamental issues of governance, Dinniman is a tax and spend liberal.
What should be more important when deciding who to vote for…the candidates plan or their philosophy?
Jonah Goldberg wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. (LINK)
The simple, relevant fact is that the more detailed and extensive a plan a president proposes, the less likely it is that it will be enacted. One basic reason for this — often overlooked by politicians and the journalists who cover them — is that presidents don’t make laws in our system. Congress does. And Congress usually has plans of its own.
He concludes
The real hints for how to choose a candidate, at least in a general election (as opposed to a primary), reside in the realm of judgment, philosophy, track record and temperament. And, using those criteria, the choice shouldn’t be hard at all.
Now that Barack Obama’s philosophy is getting the light of day…his campaign is calling it a distraction. What he wants to talk about is his “plan”. The Obama philosophy is a distraction.
According to his campaign, Barack Obama’s views of the Constitution are a “distraction”
Gateway Pundit sums it up this way,
Everything is either answered with “It’s a distraction” or “You’re a racist!”
Is this really the hope and change we’ve been waiting for? (LINK)
My take…there is hope that this won’t get ignored. That’s good, but it won’t change the mind of those that are in love with Barack. You just can’t talk sense into love-sick people.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on October 27th, 2008
The latest audio from Obama in 2001 where he explains his wealth redistribution philoshophy was not discovered by the media. It was discovered by someone with an Internet connection and a quest for knowledge.
ABC, CBS, NBC and CNNÂ have yet to publish a story on their web sites about the audio. FoxNews has it. Talk radio was buzzing this morning with the audio and discussion. The conservative bloggers are all over it.
Only the liberal media are ignoring it. What is going through their heads today? Are they shielding it from us because they don’t want to hurt Obama or do they think his ideas about the Constitution aren’t news worthy?
Back in 2000, the revelations that George Bush had a drunk driving incident years before was released right before the election. Call me crazy, but I think a candidates reading of the Constitution is a little more important than a long ago drunk driving incident.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Liberal Bias on October 27th, 2008
Bill Whittle at National Review discusses the latest audio of Barack Obama letting his real philosophy slip out.
“…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.â€
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.†We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve†it.
This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.†It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Read the whole article (LINK)
Remember the ozone hole? According to the scientific consensus twenty years, it was a man-made problem that need drastic action. We spent billions of dollars retooling refrigeration system. The cost was justified by the potential downside of doing nothing.
The man-made gasses that were the culprit were eliminated years ago and media interest in the subject died. Once the CFC were eliminated, it was time to move onto the next environmental scare…global warming.
Today the ozone hole is bigger than ever (LINK). New studies suggest that the hole is created by cosmic rays which originate in space.
Will we fall prey to the media hype and environmental lobby (disguised as science) again?
Joe Biden was asked questions from the “far right” and he couldn’t effetively answer the questions. He laughed at the questioner, wonder who wrote her questions and refused to even address one.
I will play the role of Devil’s Advocate. If I were in Joe Biden’s place, here is how I would have answered the question when asked if “spreading the wealth” around was similar to Marxism.
Communism and socialism are philosophies that believe capital should be owned by the people. The reality of that philosophy is that the government owns the capital. The opposing philosophy is free market capitalism where capital is owned privately and the the government sets up rules to assure a free market.
We are not proposing that the government own everything. We believe in the free market and private ownership. Where we differ from our opponents is how much of a role the government plays. What are the rules and how do we assure the market is free and fair?
Left unchecked, greed and disparities in equality creep into our system and only the government can provide the strength to overcome these failings. The government can assure success for the country as a whole, not just those owning capital.
We are not Marxist or Socialist. We are free market capitalist that see the world as it is, not as some Utopian free market.
Of course, I don’t believe any of that nonsense…but isn’t that a much better response to the question than laughing it off and acting like the question isn’t even worth asking?
Chris Matthews gets a feeling running up his leg when Barack Obama talks. The press has gone all-in for the most liberal candidate to ever run for President. There are still some, but not many, with professional ethics and clear heads.
Michael Malone is a veteran journalist who just can’t take it any longer. The press corp is so blatantly cheering for Obama that he is embarrassed to tell strangers what he does for a living. (LINK)
A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writerâ€, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.
Speaking of the bias
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates.
The power of the press was enhanced when the McCain/Feingold Law was passed. How long will it be before talk radio and bloggers are attacked by the Justice Department under laws created by anti-first amendment advocates in the Democratic Party? This is scary stuff. Will I soon find myself in court defending my words written here?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Liberal Bias on October 25th, 2008
Joe Biden is so arrogant in this video that he laughs at Barbara West and wonders who writes these questions.
He even refuses to answer one question because he claims the only one concerned about us moving toward European style socialism is people on the “far right”. Conservatives have to deal with liberal questions constantly. It is funny to watch a liberal answer a conservative’s questions. Liberals really do live in a bubble.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on October 25th, 2008
Senator Biden had to ask some tough questions. He was shocked by the questions even though these are questions that many Americans have. (LINK)
He says they haven’t “paid one a single penny to register one single solidary voter”. He repeated it in the same way 3 times. But the fact is they paid the $700,000 for “staging and lights”. Yea…right.
Then he gets a question about “spread the wealth” and Barabara West. Biden says that Bush’s tax policy. He follows up with a statistic about how much of the 1% of the top makes. Besides his dubious stat, his thinking is typical of liberals.
A liberal sees the economy as a pie and they want to cut it up into equal parts.
Conservatives see the economy as a truck load of pies. A better economy means more pies. Yes, some may end up with more pies than they could possibly eat, but it is not important if there are plenty of pies for everyone…and we have no sympathy for those who want their pie delivered. If you want it, you gotta get off your butt.
Older Posts »
Share on Facebook