Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Beck: Confused about Racism

August 3, 2009

We need to give up trying to make sense of Glenn Beck. Here’s what he says about Obama in the same breath:

I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people . . . . this guy is, I believe, a racist.

Then, what the heck does “racist” mean to Glenn Beck when talking about Obama? Apparently, “racist” means “someone who does things I don’t like.”

Advertisements

Obama is Our Greatest Threat

February 24, 2009

On Friday, 2/23/09, Dennis Prager had a caller who asked what posed a greater threat to the U.S.: Obama and his socialist agenda or Islamofascism. Prager said that it was Obama and socialism. Think about this answer and its irresponsible implications.

Prager has said repeatedly that Islamofascism is our country’s greatest threat, surpassing even the threats we faced from the Nazis and the Soviets. But now, that threat is nothing compared to the Obama administration. Prager and his ilk have told us that defeating Islamofascism is worth dying for because its threat is so dire, mortal, and imminent.

But now, tap the brakes because we have an even greater threat in Obama. And if Islamofascism is worthy dying to defeat, where does that leave Obama?

Prager exemplifies the irresponsible, even insane behavior that is much of talk. For example, consider Glenn Beck as he gives credibility to a revolution waged by the “bubba factor.” Even though Beck is “horrified”

Opposition Politics

November 24, 2008

Conservatives like Sean Hannity have been blaming Obama for our economic problems because, of course, the sitting president can’t be blamed for anything. Regardless, we now see a Wall Street rally after Obama announced his economic team as well as plans for an economic stimulus package. The bounce started late Friday afternoon:

Stocks erased a decline Friday and managed a massive rally after reports surfaced that the New York Fed Bank president [Timothy Geithner] was Obama’s pick.

I’m just curious how tired these conservative talking heads get from always being wrong. Or do they just say their lies and move on to the next thing.

After years of approving deficit spending, Republicans now get cheap when it comes to saving our economy. More precisely, they’re filling their role as the opposition party by opposing anything Obama supports, even if it means voting against helping Americans.

Guns and Threats

November 21, 2008

Connect the dots.

First up are gun sales:

Gun sales across the county — and the country — are surging in the wake of the Nov. 4 election as fears mount for an incoming Barack Obama administration that some feel might restrict or even strip their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Background checks for people looking to buy guns has shot to unprecedented levels, according to Lance Clem, spokesperson for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Next, we have the highest level of post-election threats against a president-elect:

Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before.

But since the November 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president’s security is so sensitive.

Earlier this week, the Secret Service looked into the case of a sign posted on a tree in Vay, Idaho, with Obama’s name and the offer of a “free public hanging”. In North Carolina, civil rights officials complained of threatening racist graffiti targeting Obama found in a tunnel near the North Carolina State University campus.

And in a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin.

The crazy black Marxist is coming to take away your stuff and give it to the poor. Oh, you think I’m exaggerating the thinking of some? Here’s a sample of comments about gun purchases from a conservative blog:

  • “I want [a gun]. I’m afraid of guns. They scare me. But some things are more dangerous than a gun in the hands of a free citizen of a democracy. Like a Marxist Socialist in the White House… because Marxists have killed 100,000,000 human beings and are the most murderous politicians in world history . . . .”
  • “In the current economic meltdown, it’s not a SWAT team you need to worry about; it’s the drug-addled poor people and crystal-meth zombies who are coming to take whatever you’ve got.”
  • “Remember the 2A is there to keep government from making laws about an INHERENT right. A right given to you by your creator, whether that be God or some sort of primordial soup.”

This is what you get from the conservative media: fear and anger.

Spreading a Wealth of Lies 2

October 28, 2008

As a follow-up to my previous post, here are Palin’s statements in Des Moines. Let us count the lies together.

See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else1. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody2. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record… Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us3. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us4.

1 Only workers making over $250,000 face the possibility of higher taxes under Obama’s plan. 95% of workers will see a reduction or no increase of their federal income taxes. That is an undeniable fact.
2 Nowhere does Obama propose taking money from one person and giving it to another. As I explained previously, he is proposing a tax credit to workers for income and payroll taxes that they pay. All workers pay the payroll tax, so no one is getting someone else’s money: Obama is giving people back money that they themselves paid. This is probably Palin’s biggest lie. She goes so far as to suggest Obama’s going to come in with his gummint goons and take your furniture and silverware to give to “other” people.
3 Where in Obama’s record has he misused the power to tax? Nowhere. And guess what? His current tax plan calls for LOWER OR THE SAME TAXES for everyone not making more than $250,000 a year. For those making more than $250,000, they’ll see tax rates that they had in the 90s.
4 Oh no, it’s Married to the Government. But where is government making decisions for families? By giving families tax credits, Obama is giving them a choice to spend or save that money.

It seems that Palin is completely unable to make a statement without lying.

Spreading a Wealth of Lies

October 28, 2008

McCain, Palin, Fox News, and many others are falling over themselves to claim that Obama is “spreading the wealth,” which makes him a Marxist. But sharing the wealth is hardly an uncommon idea, even among Republican presidents and wannabes. But let’s look at some facts, and let’s start with the frequent claim from Republicans that 40% of Americans don’t even pay taxes but to whom Obama would give money.

For these Republicans, that’s taking money from us and giving it to them. But the fact is that workers don’t just pay income taxes but pay high payroll taxes, which is something all workers all have to pay, except for those earning over $100,000, which is the cap for payroll taxes. Republicans ignore these taxes, which increased for the majority of Americans under Reagan.

Obama has planned a “Make Work Pay” tax credit of $500 for 95% of American workers. While 40% of workers might not pay federal income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. In fact, while the federal income tax has dropped for lowest quintile, payroll taxes have increased (from 5.3 in 1979 to 8.3 in 2005).

So, Obama is not giving money to people who don’t pay taxes: he’s giving a tax credit to workers who do pay federal taxes. Let’s put some numbers to this now. A worker makes $25,000 a year and pays no federal income tax because of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Still, that worker pays more than $2000 in payroll taxes. For that worker, Obama offers a $500 tax credit, but because she doesn’t have an income tax, she gets a check for $500, offsetting a portion of her payroll taxes (which she still has contributed more than $1500 after the tax credit).

This is hardly a Marxist redistribution of wealth because the worker still pays federal taxes, and the worker is getting back money she paid to the federal government. She’s getting back her money, not your money, not money she didn’t earn.

So, when Palin and her ilk lie about Obama taking “your money” and doing what he wants with it, keep in mind that not just Republicans pay taxes. Everyone does. And Obama is trying to give some of that money back to 95% of taxpayers.

John McCarthy

October 10, 2008

It is a sad commentary on McCain’s desperation and hunger for power that he allows his staff and his running mate to accuse Obama of being a terrorist. Is that how adled McCain has become that he honestly cannot separate someone that he disagrees with from an enemy of our nation?

I think that, if a candidate doesn’t deserve leading our nation as president, it is the one who’s willing to call his fellow senator an enemy of America, so that he can achieve a selfish political end.

Obama, the Right’s Hitler du jour

October 6, 2008

National Review flunky Jonah Goldber writes one of the more contorted feats of logic called Liberal Facism.

Republicans of similar mind produce these videos of hate:

There are more, but you get the fear message.

McCain’s Gotcha Politics

September 30, 2008

Listening to John and Sarah try to explain how she didn’t contradict McCain on Pakistan is, well, just painful to those of us who are used to honesty and sense.

For the record of Palin’s response in context, read this record of the discussion, which is essentially the same as her response to a Charles Gibson question.

“So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?” Rovito asked.

“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” Palin said.

The fact is that McCain attacked Obama for a deliberate misreading of his statement last year:

Obama said there was “misreporting” of his comments, that “I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan.” He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a “diplomatic surge” and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.

Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were “actionable intelligence reports” showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if “the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling” to go after the terrorists.

If anything, Obama’s answer was far more mature than Palin’s unqualified plan to cross the Pakistani border because he put a very specific qualification to it: the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling” to pursue the terrorists.

Yet, not so long ago, conservatives criticized Clinton for not attacking bin Laden in foreign countries, even if it meant taking out innocents or non-al Qaeda political leaders with him. [See the Fox interview starting at the 4:00 mark.]

The fact is that Palin says nothing substantively different than what Obama said. Instead, McCain and Palin try to divert us from that inescapable fact with some wildass claim about “gotcha” journalism, which is generally understood as taking advantage of a simple or ambiguous question to highlight some apparent contradiction. That wasn’t what happened with Palin: she was asked a rather clear question and answered it with some specificity.

But I have a question for McCain who criticized Obama for his statement to protect America: what exactly did he mean when he said the following:

If he truly meant what he said, then, without a doubt, countries like Pakistan understand what he’s saying. To that end, he doesn’t differ from what Obama said.

The only “gotcha” here is McCain’s pathetic “gotcha politics” for trying to make Obama sound naive when, in fact, he’s not saying anything different than what an “experienced” senator like McCain himself has said: he will do what is necessary.

Surprise . . . Rush Lies About Obama

September 23, 2008

Rush Limbaugh showed his ignorance yet again:

These polls on how one-third of blue-collar white Democrats won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, and — but he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father was — he’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American. I guess that’s splitting hairs, I don’t — it’s just all these little things, everything seems upside-down today in this country.

Here’s the deal: Obama’s African roots are in Kenya, which is not an “Arabic” state in whatever sense Rush means that word:

  • Arabs, along with Europeans and Asians, make up only 1% of Kenyan population.
  • Muslim are 10% of the population with Christians making up some 70%.

I always laugh when people, particularly conservatives, criticize actors and musicians for making political statements because what do they do know about politics? Yet, I believe even they would know that Kenya is not Arabic or Islamic.

Rush, you are the Jessica Simpson of politics.