This is why Obama should never be Commander in Chief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Obama yo Mama Pt.1
All of this is from http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm.
First up is the critical and often ignored issue of abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Undecided on whether life begins at conception
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
If “potential life” is something that holds a moral weight to it, why hasn’t Obama come to a firm resolution on it? What if other decisions come up that hold a moral weight to them and he cannot come to a resolution on them? Obviously, Obama has decided to not decide. On this issue, he is a man of indecision. If he does state that life begins at conception, the pro-lifers will wonder why he’s rated 100 by NARAL. If he states that life does not begin at conception, he loses some of that attractive polish that goes along with his indecisiveness.
OBAMA RECORD
Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008
Self explanatory.
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:
Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
Ensure Ethical Standards
Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007
Yes, regular stem cell research is fine. Embryonic stem cell research is not. Also, how is it guaranteed that those “left over” embryos would otherwise be discarded if not used for embryonic stem cell research? The fact about the whole issue is this: Adult stem cells hold more potential than embryonic stem cells. If the evidence points in favor of adult stem cells, and if we really care about finding news ways to cure diseases and such, how come the media and liberals are adamant on embryonic stem cell research? It almost reminds me of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.
[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006
Just one question comes out of this: Who says that legalized abortion equals safe abortion? Read Lime 5 and tell me that legal abortion means safe abortion.
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006
This is downright frightening. The Constitution is a dead document, plain and simple.
1. Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Next, the economy. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq
The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Maybe if Obama studied the information, he would see that the money we are spending in Iraq isn’t as much as he thinks. Yes, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. But how does that compare to our current GDP? Hmmm….
“Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the 'escalating cost of the war.' Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.
Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).
This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.”
Check out the article. It has a nice little graph, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp
Besides, the health care reforms that Obama and Hillary want to push would probably break the bank. You want change? Good, because that is all you will have left in your pockets.
Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007
Last time I checked, Congress is as involved with the budget-making process just as much as the President. Wait, isn’t Congress the same bunch that included so many earmarks and pork-barrel spending? Shouldn’t Obama be addressing his fellow congressmen instead?
Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest. According to Obama, "We're going to put more money into education than we have. WE have to invest in human capital."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007
This made me laugh for a significant amount of time. According to Merriam Webster online, Social Darwinism is defined as:
“Main Entry: social Darwinism
Function: noun
Date: 1887
an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.”
I don’t think competition in a capitalist system can be defined as Social Darwinism. It is a stretch to say the least. I think it is more along the lines of the government allowing you to take the resources you have and use them as you wish like a dignified human being. Obama’s idea of the government’s role is for those who want to suck up to the government for help, for those who want the government to run their lives for them. I cannot put it any other way.
Time for some civil rights. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm
People want to move beyond our divisions
I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. I'm not entirely faulting the media because, look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and there's no doubt that that has piqued interest. They are desperate to move beyond the same, old arguments that we've been having and start actually getting something done in this country. The Republicans may have a different attitude, because they haven't been appearing before forums that are diverse. The policies that they have promoted have not been good at providing ladders for upward mobility and opportunity for all people. That is a fight that all of us will fight. But I don't want us to get drawn into this notion that somehow this is going to be a race that splits along racial lines.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Maybe you should give your pastor and former congregation a little lesson in how we need to move on, Obama.
Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants
Q: You said about affirmative action that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children should get special consideration.
A: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? Race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities to say, "we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or women..."
Q: Even if they're wealthy?
A: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
I agree that Affirmative Action should not be a quota system. I will go further, though: It shouldn’t be a system at all. Affirmative Action is just another form of discrimination in our society. If you are black or latino, they will look at you and say, “This person may have been disadvantaged throughout their life because their skin color is different.” Affirmative Action is a way for the college systems and government to encourage a feeling of victimization; by acknowledging Affirmative Action, you are letting the government classify you as someone who is “under privileged” simply because of your race or skin color.
Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?
A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
To put it simply, homosexuality is a choice.
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007
How, then, does that change things? If it’s simply a matter of receiving benefits and not being socially accepted as being in a “marriage”, how come others do not say the same thing as Obama? Simply stating that a recognized homosexual union is for the benefits of “marriage” and not the condition of being “married” waters down the severity of the debate.
Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007
The major difference between homosexual rights and civil rights is the nature of the subject of discrimination. With civil rights, you had people being discriminated against simply because of their skin color. That is a maddening social travesty. With homosexual rights, people are being discriminated against because of a personal lifestyle choice. For example, not hiring a homosexual on the grounds of a belief that it is immoral is no different than refusing to hire a pusher.
Time for Corporations. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Corporations.htm
Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving overseas. Obama will fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies committed to American workers.
In today's economy, American workers have to compete against high-skilled workers across the globe. Obama will make long-term investments in education, training, & workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths--our ingenuity & entrepreneurialism--to create new high-wage jobs
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007
So then let American workers compete! Instead of enforcing ways to hurt companies if they go somewhere else, be appealing to them so that they will not want to leave. Also, outsourcing of jobs here (and overseas, mind you) allows for specialization. If the US isn’t the best place to make automobiles, let someone make them in a place where the environment is pristine auto manufacturing! In the end, everyone will benefit from trade and specialization…that is, if you allow it to happen.
More to come soon! I am extremely busy right now and I just don’t have time to complete all of this in one sitting. I’ll post more Obama stuff later and that will be followed by McCain the Pain.
First up is the critical and often ignored issue of abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Undecided on whether life begins at conception
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
If “potential life” is something that holds a moral weight to it, why hasn’t Obama come to a firm resolution on it? What if other decisions come up that hold a moral weight to them and he cannot come to a resolution on them? Obviously, Obama has decided to not decide. On this issue, he is a man of indecision. If he does state that life begins at conception, the pro-lifers will wonder why he’s rated 100 by NARAL. If he states that life does not begin at conception, he loses some of that attractive polish that goes along with his indecisiveness.
OBAMA RECORD
Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008
Self explanatory.
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:
Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
Ensure Ethical Standards
Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007
Yes, regular stem cell research is fine. Embryonic stem cell research is not. Also, how is it guaranteed that those “left over” embryos would otherwise be discarded if not used for embryonic stem cell research? The fact about the whole issue is this: Adult stem cells hold more potential than embryonic stem cells. If the evidence points in favor of adult stem cells, and if we really care about finding news ways to cure diseases and such, how come the media and liberals are adamant on embryonic stem cell research? It almost reminds me of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.
[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006
Just one question comes out of this: Who says that legalized abortion equals safe abortion? Read Lime 5 and tell me that legal abortion means safe abortion.
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006
This is downright frightening. The Constitution is a dead document, plain and simple.
1. Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Next, the economy. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq
The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Maybe if Obama studied the information, he would see that the money we are spending in Iraq isn’t as much as he thinks. Yes, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. But how does that compare to our current GDP? Hmmm….
“Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the 'escalating cost of the war.' Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.
Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).
This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.”
Check out the article. It has a nice little graph, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp
Besides, the health care reforms that Obama and Hillary want to push would probably break the bank. You want change? Good, because that is all you will have left in your pockets.
Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007
Last time I checked, Congress is as involved with the budget-making process just as much as the President. Wait, isn’t Congress the same bunch that included so many earmarks and pork-barrel spending? Shouldn’t Obama be addressing his fellow congressmen instead?
Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest. According to Obama, "We're going to put more money into education than we have. WE have to invest in human capital."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007
This made me laugh for a significant amount of time. According to Merriam Webster online, Social Darwinism is defined as:
“Main Entry: social Darwinism
Function: noun
Date: 1887
an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.”
I don’t think competition in a capitalist system can be defined as Social Darwinism. It is a stretch to say the least. I think it is more along the lines of the government allowing you to take the resources you have and use them as you wish like a dignified human being. Obama’s idea of the government’s role is for those who want to suck up to the government for help, for those who want the government to run their lives for them. I cannot put it any other way.
Time for some civil rights. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm
People want to move beyond our divisions
I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. I'm not entirely faulting the media because, look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and there's no doubt that that has piqued interest. They are desperate to move beyond the same, old arguments that we've been having and start actually getting something done in this country. The Republicans may have a different attitude, because they haven't been appearing before forums that are diverse. The policies that they have promoted have not been good at providing ladders for upward mobility and opportunity for all people. That is a fight that all of us will fight. But I don't want us to get drawn into this notion that somehow this is going to be a race that splits along racial lines.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Maybe you should give your pastor and former congregation a little lesson in how we need to move on, Obama.
Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants
Q: You said about affirmative action that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children should get special consideration.
A: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? Race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities to say, "we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or women..."
Q: Even if they're wealthy?
A: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
I agree that Affirmative Action should not be a quota system. I will go further, though: It shouldn’t be a system at all. Affirmative Action is just another form of discrimination in our society. If you are black or latino, they will look at you and say, “This person may have been disadvantaged throughout their life because their skin color is different.” Affirmative Action is a way for the college systems and government to encourage a feeling of victimization; by acknowledging Affirmative Action, you are letting the government classify you as someone who is “under privileged” simply because of your race or skin color.
Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?
A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
To put it simply, homosexuality is a choice.
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007
How, then, does that change things? If it’s simply a matter of receiving benefits and not being socially accepted as being in a “marriage”, how come others do not say the same thing as Obama? Simply stating that a recognized homosexual union is for the benefits of “marriage” and not the condition of being “married” waters down the severity of the debate.
Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007
The major difference between homosexual rights and civil rights is the nature of the subject of discrimination. With civil rights, you had people being discriminated against simply because of their skin color. That is a maddening social travesty. With homosexual rights, people are being discriminated against because of a personal lifestyle choice. For example, not hiring a homosexual on the grounds of a belief that it is immoral is no different than refusing to hire a pusher.
Time for Corporations. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Corporations.htm
Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving overseas. Obama will fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies committed to American workers.
In today's economy, American workers have to compete against high-skilled workers across the globe. Obama will make long-term investments in education, training, & workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths--our ingenuity & entrepreneurialism--to create new high-wage jobs
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007
So then let American workers compete! Instead of enforcing ways to hurt companies if they go somewhere else, be appealing to them so that they will not want to leave. Also, outsourcing of jobs here (and overseas, mind you) allows for specialization. If the US isn’t the best place to make automobiles, let someone make them in a place where the environment is pristine auto manufacturing! In the end, everyone will benefit from trade and specialization…that is, if you allow it to happen.
More to come soon! I am extremely busy right now and I just don’t have time to complete all of this in one sitting. I’ll post more Obama stuff later and that will be followed by McCain the Pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
