Reagan combined tax cuts with deregulation to create the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history. That said, what is Barack Hussein Obama's cure for our recent economic downturn? Regulation combined with tax increases. A successful President of the United States took one road and it led to an economic boom but a potential President would choose a path in an opposite direction. What do you think that outcome would be? What is the opposite of an economic boom?
The government must revive the economy by tightening regulations and reforming its own agencies to adjust to the realities of modern finance, Barack Obama said Thursday.
In a speech billed as a major address, the Democratic presidential candidate said most experts agree the U.S. economy is in a recession. "To renew our economy - and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again - we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people," Obama said. "We do American business - and the American people - no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks," he added.
Obama has gone on record several times as being in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 when they are due to sunset. This is the equivalent of a tax increase. But to a leftist like Barack Hussein Obama, it is "targeted" because in their minds the tax cuts only benefited the "rich". Tell that to the family whose income has them in the 10% tax bracket - the working poor - who will see a 50% increase in their tax burden with the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. It was those cuts which created the 10% bracket. Tell that to the working lower and middle classes when they get slapped with massive layoffs because their employers cannot afford to pay the larger tax burden created when these tax cuts expire. Remember people - it is those who have economic mobility who create jobs for the rest of us. By slapping them with a tax increase the money available to these people to expand business and make investments dries up. This will, and I'm not speculating I know for certain, this WILL create a higher unemployment rate.
One road would lead to prosperity the other to economic ruin. Reagan proved which road is which. Why would anyone vote for someone who advocates a road in the opposite direction? The current problem is a credit problem. Banks extended loans and credit to people who were incapable of paying their bills. The last thing the government needs to do is involve itself. Mr. Obama's "solution" will only compound the problem.
Obama is no Jackie Robinson
Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America, and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama. Let's look at it in the context of a historical tidbit.
In 1947, Jackie Robinson, signing a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball. He encountered open racist taunts and slurs from fans, opposing team players and even some players on his own team. Despite that, his first year batting average was .297. He led the National League in stolen bases and won the first-ever Rookie of the Year Award. Without question, Jackie Robinson was an exceptional player. There's no sense of justice that should require that a player be as good as Jackie Robinson to be a rookie in the major leagues, but the hard fact of the matter, as a first black player, he had to be.
In 1947, black people could not afford a stubble bum baseball player. By contrast, today black people can afford stubble bum black baseball players. The simple reason is that as a result of the excellence of Jackie Robinson, as well those who immediately followed him such as Satchel Paige, Don Newcombe, Larry Doby and Roy Campanella, there's no one in his right mind, who might watch the incompetence of a particular black player, who can say, "Those blacks can't play baseball." Whether we like it or not, whether for good reason or bad reason, people make stereotypes and stereotypes can have effects.
For the nation and for black people, the first black president should be the caliber of a Jackie Robinson, and Barack Obama is not. Barack Obama has charisma and charm, but in terms of character, values and understanding, he is no Jackie Robinson. By now, many Americans have heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Obama's minister and spiritual counselor. There's no way that Obama could have been a 20-year member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church and not been aware of his statements.
Wright's racist and anti-American ideas are by no means unique. They are the ideas of many leftist professors and taught to our young people. The basic difference between Sen. Obama, Wright and leftist professors is simply a matter of style and language. His Philadelphia speech demonstrated his clever style where he merely changed the subject. The controversy was not about race. It was about his longtime association with such a hatemonger and whether he shared the reverend's vision.
Obama's success is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race. I'm 72 years old. For almost all of my life, a black having a real chance at becoming the president of the United States was at best a pipe dream. Obama has convincingly won primaries in states with insignificant black populations. As such, it further confirms what I've often said: The civil rights struggle in America is over and it's won. At one time black Americans did not have the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by white Americans; now we do. The fact that the civil rights struggle is over and won does not mean that there are not major problems confronting many members of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems and have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination.
While not every single vestige of racial discrimination has disappeared, Obama and the Rev. Wright are absolutely wrong in suggesting that racial discrimination is anywhere near the major problem confronting a large segment of the black community. The major problems are: family breakdown, illegitimacy, fraudulent education and a high rate of criminality. To confront these problems, that are not the fault of the larger society, requires political courage, and that's an attribute Obama and most other politicians lack.
What part of bipartisan does this guy not understand?
Today's Washington Post features a front page political ad for article about Sen. Obama, In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism. It starts:
Sen. Barack Obama offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country's problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated. But as Obama heads into the final presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, "a down-the-line liberal," as McCain strategist Charles R. Black Jr. put it, in a long line of Democratic White House hopefuls.
So in the first two paragraphs the article establishes its baseline: how Sen. Obama portrays himself. It's as if questioning if he really represesnts any sort of "post-partisan" reality is somehow dirty pool. Later on there are two really remarkable paragraphs.
In most major areas, Obama has taken positions that would seem to conform to the Republican stereotype of a liberal. Like Clinton, he favors expanding the government's role in delivering health care, and would pay for that by ending President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. He would go a step further than Clinton by lifting the limit on income taxed for Social Security, now $100,000, to set that program on firm footing.
He strongly supports abortion rights and spoke out against a Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld a ban on the procedure that some call "partial-birth" abortion. He favors allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (after some hesitation, Clinton came out against that). He is outspoken on civil rights, and he has opposed Bush's judicial picks, staying out of a bipartisan effort to approve some nominees. While he supports the death penalty for the most "heinous" crimes, as a Senate candidate in 2004 he expressed support for strict gun control, decriminalizing marijuana and ending federal mandatory minimum prison sentences, issues he now rarely raises on the trail.
A "Republican stereotype of a liberal"? He stakes out liberal positions and holds to them. It's not a stereotype, it's his reality. And his National Journal rating is no fluke. But how can the reporter wax eloquent about Sen. Obama's "post-partisan" appeal and then write that he stayed "...out of a bipartisan effort to approve some nominees." If he really is the "post-partisan" candidate of the first two paragraphs it would have been the gang of 15.
The problem isn't how Sen. Obama's foes portray him, it's his record. Why would he fail to mention positions he espouses on the trail, except to avoid the fact that these are unpopular and he sees a disadvantage in promoting them. That's fine, but that doesn't make him not liberal. In fact it makes him extremely political.
If the reporter wanted to focus on a candidate with "post-partisan" appeal perhaps he could have looked at Sen. McCain. A recent Gallup poll shows:
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
So a significant portion of Democratic primary voters - though still a minority - would support Sen. McCain in the general election. That would seem to be a much better indication of "post-partisanship" than Sen. Obama's attempts to hide his record. Unfortunately the Post's reporter seemed more interested in presenting a brief for Sen. Obama than in analyzing the dynamics of the presidential race.
Obama and the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil
According to Obama's supporters, his words, which seem to float on air, mean something, except of course when one figures out what kind of BS he shoveling and calls him on it - then WE don't get it. Take for instance this tripe from Martin Peretz at the New Republic in a article he titles, "Standing By His Man", Why Obama was right in not repudiating his paster. Here is the key quote:
"The fact is that many of us were astonished by the rhythm of the English language as it is practiced in Wright's church. Forget for the moment the content. Take a look at a service in what is now Otis Moss's church. This is a Christianity that seems to outsiders to have as much to do with break dancing as it does with the New Testament, and the culture of this one church is very much like the culture of thousands all over America.
You may puzzle as to how Barack Obama, of the quiet demeanor and the Holmesian logic, can relate to this pattern of religiosity. But, if I may jog your oversensitized memory, there was more of Chicago's Trinity United Church in Martin Luther King's perorations than there was Reinhold Niebuhr. The typical black church service is not a Unitarian prayer meeting or Catholic devotions. It is something "other" that many of us have not experienced and do not know. It is not ours but theirs. And what's wrong with that?"
What absolute nonsense. So "black", so-called "Christian Churches" get a pass on racism because it's more "culturally" acceptable, so we should just cool our "over-sensitized" memories?
As a evangelical Christian who has worshipped in black, white, hispanic and even with converted Jews, I can tell you that this is bathwater. In Christ there is no black or white, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Him. The way we know one another in the faith is by the fruit they produce. Our Savior said, "You shall know them by their fruit". (Mat. 7:20)
No matter how it's spun Jeremiah Wright's fruit is rancid and it is fit for nothing but the dunghill and to be repudiated and condemned outright. The fact is that Barak Obama - who spent 20 years under Wright's teachings - by not competely disassociating himself from the evil of Wright's fruit consequently makes him a partner in his doctrine.
Jesus also said, "A bad tree cannot produce good fruit, nor a good tree produce good fruit". (Mat. 7:17-18) Wright is a by the measure and quality of his fruit a bad tree, and Obama tasted quite often of this fruit and from all intents - until it was exposed - was content with it's flavor. Here's a little theology for Mr. Peretz. The delusion of evil is that it rationalizes itself as good.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)