joe biden

President Obama And Abortion: Not One Restriction

The following article was written by John McCormack at The Weekly Standard Blog:

At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."

Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.

In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.

TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney’s position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That’s not our position that’s not where the American public is. And I think it’s going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado and Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.

TWS: So the president doesn’t support any restrictions on abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we’ve been very clear. You know our position on abortion.

TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?

MESSINA: Look, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve been very clear about our position. And that’s what it is.

TWS: Can you name one restriction?

Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.

Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:

TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?

CUTTER: No, that’s not his position.

TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?

CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.

David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven’t spoken to him about those," she replied.

In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.

The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Big Guns' Appearances Within Week Enhance Virginia's Battleground Status

Unless you are living a fully hermetic life, you know Virginia is as much at the crossroads in the presidential campaign as it was for the armies of Washington, Rochambeau and Cornwallis in the summer and fall of 1781. Advertisements fill the airwaves during local programming on both television and radio and pop up on computer screens as people with Virginia ZIP Codes peruse social media sites, calls set off ring tones, and door knockers appear at our front steps with bright and shiny smiles. Nothing too unusual, especially in recent years as Virginia has trended "purple." But it has started earlier than ever — by months. While Democrats used to write off Virginia during presidential years, Barack Obama's superbly organized campaign and large crowd appearances changed the dynamic here and forced campaign stops by the Republican ticket in 2008. If some appearances during the home stretch four years ago put the spotlight on the commonwealth, how do three major swings through the Old Dominion within one August week sound?

News came down yesterday that newly minted Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan will be in downtown Richmond Thursday night with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for a fundraiser and then on Friday morning hold a rally in the suburb of Glen Allen at Deep Run High School (see Richmond Times-Dispatch). Friday he and Governor Jindal will hold a fundraiser in Arlington. This comes on the heels of GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Ryan working the I-64/95 crescent Saturday with stops in Norfolk, Ashland and Manassas as part of Ryan's national introduction. Picking Virginia for the announcement of Ryan's selection in and of itself speaks volumes to the importance and weight Virginia carries in this year's election. This newly announced swing bookends a trip through South and Southwest Virginia yesterday by Vice President Joe Biden, who made national news in his own special way.

If all that isn't enough, tomorrow afternoon Governor Jindal will be the featured guest at a meet and greet at the South Chesterfield Victory office. For more information about any of these events, click here. These specific site visits underscore the sophistication of the modern campaign, with micro targeting of specific sections of certain areas to turn out and excite voters.

While it may all sound exciting, it also has the potential to test the endurance of even the hardest of hard core political junkies. Try to enjoy the rest of your summer. This fall we will have as much room for escape from the noise as Cornwallis did the Americans and French.

BREAKING NEWS: Biden Campaigning In Danville Tells Crowd They're In N.C.!

This just happened within the hour: Vice President Gaffe-a-Lot Joe Biden, campaigning in the Commonwealth in Danville, screamed to the crowd that "with you" he and he and President You-Didn't-Build-It Obama "will win North Carolina" and "the election." This is really funny since the cutline on the television screen notes "Danville, Virginia" which must have left thousands scratching their heads. What is it about Leftists seeking national office campaigning in Virginia? But as bad as Biden's recent gaffe is — see some of his greatest hits here — the insult likely will wipe out the inroads Democrats made in Southside and Southwest Virginia in 2008, with GOP ads coming faster than a NASCAR vehicle, there not as bad as his boss' "You didn't build it" remark two weeks ago in Roanoke.

UPDATE: Maybe not: Also coming to light is that Biden accused Mitt Romney of wanting to put black Americans "back in chains!" while patronizing Virginians with an affectation of a Southern drawl. Dispicable!

That all said, please note this: Just as with the Obamabots who screamed their approval in Roanoke and who showed an amazing inability to discern logic at another rally, the liberals who turned out in Danville didn't seem to notice, either. They screamed their approval of being in Biden's fantasy land of "Danville, North Carolina."

Vice President Joe Biden campaigning in Danville, North Carolina Virginia this morning.

Updated:

"Put y'all back in chains!" Oh, imagine the riots that would've started had a conservative made this comment.

The Obama campaign is saying it "has no problem" with this comment. It is saying it is out of context. So, whenever they insult or demean or lie or just say stupid things, the Left claims its "out of context." The Left is never responsible for anything, even when it's on tape (not surprisingly, since personal responsibility is not a tenant of liberalism) and often is saying what it really thinks because it believes rules of accountability do not apply to them.

But let's look at his campaign says Biden meant, that an Obama loss would mean a return to economic chains (never mind the key word "back" and the "Southern" drawl). Who has done more to put the iron clamp on economic prosperity than Barack Obama and Joe Biden? "The Food Stamp President" has created the largest class of dependency in American history: highest number of Americans at or below the poverty line in decades, a record number of Americans on food stamps, and he's gutted the landmark welfare reform by removing the work provision for recipients to receive checks. I documented the entire litany of more than two dozen economic lows under the Obama administration here.

The Pro Choice Crisis?

It's been interesting to watch the pro-choice movement over the years. Admittedly, I wasn't around to do much watching in the 1970s right after Roe v. Wade. However, it appears that the general perspective was that the unborn child, as I would refer to him or her, was considered little more than a blob of tissue pretty much until it was born and wanted. That belief has been shown to be fiction over time as science has proved what I've always known as a matter of my faith — that it's a human being much earlier than that, as in from conception. The first shift in discussing abortion that I recall started with the concept of viability. The earlier a baby could be born and survive, the more folks on all sides had to acknowledge that it must be more than a blob at some point, though defining that particular point was difficult for pro-aborts. Currently, this once-called blob can survive outside the womb at 21 weeks.

To make matters worse for the abortion movement, Time magazine and others started reporting on fetal surgery and how the unborn child would react to stimuli doctors used in the womb. Then GE launched the 4D ultrasound. Now, the non-biased viewer saw things a lot clearer than the black and white skeletal image to which people had grown accustomed.

These scientific advances have caused a change in dialogue (and a change in opinion?). Of late, one mostly hears groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL talk not in terms of who's in the womb, but in terms of the circumstances the woman faces that merit her taking of human life: the pregnant mom is in poverty, a victim of rape, wouldn't be able to complete her education, "health care." These are real situations and not ones to make light of. However, recent news is bringing to light other circumstances that result in abortion — sex selection and extra embryos.

Not long ago we reported on sex selective abortions. While most associate this problem with India or China's one-child policy (something Joe Biden "understands," see Lisa Graas at LiveAction Blog), the use of sex selection is alive and well in the U.S (see New York Times). Unlike the UK and other places where such a practice has been banned, here it is perfectly legal. It can be done through abortion or one can simply fly to Las Vegas and pay $20,000 to choose an embryo by gender to implant through in vitro fertilization. Even if one doesn't choose to implant a specific sex but implants multiple embryos, one can engage in "twin reduction." This is the process whereby IVF clients implant multiple embryos and when they thrive in the womb, the “parents” then choose one embryo to eliminate through abortion. Given two healthy babies, sex selection can be the basis for that decision. After all, according to Gallup, 45 percent of respondents would choose a boy if they could have only one child, a number nearly double those choosing a girl (27 percent cited no preference).

Couple this practice with recent news of a 95-percent-plus accurate blood test that determines the sex of an unborn child at seven weeks (at least seven-13 weeks earlier than the oft-used ultrasound method, see CBSNews.com), and you see where this is leading. Much like the 4D ultrasound, used only for high-risk pregnancies but available commercially, some in the medical community use this blood test to detect sex-related genetic disorders, but it also is available for purchase by customers of all stripes. In a largely meaningless gesture, the primary seller of the kit, Consumer Genetics, Inc., does require an agreement from purchasers stating that the purpose of testing is not sex selection before it processes the results.

Both "twin reduction" and "sex selection" do appear to be causing some heartburn among "pro-choicers (see William Saletan at Slate.com).When the movement was focused on a blob of tissue, no discussion of motivation was necessary. Since scientific advances have forced proponents of abortion to turn the discussion into a balance between the needs of the mother and the value of the unborn child, motivation becomes relevant. Is abortion acceptable under any and all circumstances? Should someone be able to create a child, implant it and then choose to extinguish its perfectly healthy life as a result of it being one more than was intended? Doesn't the fact that they consciously attempt to create a child prove it is a life? Is it acceptable to society that a woman may choose to get pregnant as frequently as she chooses and abort any number of times to get the desired "boy" result on the seven week blood test?

Interestingly enough, we may have discovered a point where feminism contradicts itself. Can feminism hold onto the view that a woman has a "right to choose" in all circumstances, even if it results in legalized inequality between sexes in the womb?

While this blood test tragically may increase abortion, it has potential fatal ramification for the "pro-choice" movement: This once-called blob of tissue now not only has a discernable heartbeat at six weeks, its sex can be determined at seven. Those defending abortion on demand continue to run headlong into the great words of Dr. Suess: "A person's a person, no matter how small."

Vice President Gaffe-A-Lot At It Again: He's No Ordinary Joe

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden added a fresh gaffe to the myriad in his collection. To be fair, it isn't necessarily a gaffe. As thoroughly and comprehensively wrong as he is in this latest blunder, he genuinely believes it. So maybe it doesn't quite qualify as a gaffe. Rather, it's a true believer's thoroughly incomprehensible genuine thought. Either way, it's astounding.  Said the Veep:

Every single great idea that has marked the 21st Century, the 20th Century and the 19th Century has required government vision and government incentive.

That would shock every great inventor, thinker and entrepreneur from those eras. Think Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers or FedEx founder Frederick Smith, to name three of thousands.

Ryan Young at OpenMarket.org willingly takes Biden's statist assertion on behalf of Adam Smith. He pulls this quote from the Great Scot's Theory of Moral Sentiments (read it online):

The man of system . . . is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. ... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.

Young and Alex Schibuola further dissect Mr. Biden at The Daily Caller. Mr. Biden,  President Obama and the entire crew they have in place are true men and women of the system, believing their great plans in the hands of people who know better than the average Joe is the only path to progress.

Great philosophies are timeless, true throughout the ages. Smith's words perfectly describe today's control freakish, government-first, micromanaging, "system" liberals. Could he have been any more prescient in using the term "great society"?

adam_smith

The Great Scot: Adam Smith knew Joe Biden and his type long ago.

Note: It's hard to keep up with the plethora of Biden gaffes, mistakes, misspeaks. But some people try: See YouTube here and here for video documentation of the Veep's hit list.

Joe Biden Had It Right About Barack Obama, Mostly

Then-Senator Joe Biden, running for vice president, had it right in October 2008, mostly. He said, in a near political death wish, that the "about to be elected" Barack Obama would face a major international crisis, because he was young and someone, somewhere, would "test" him. Remember this?

Another mistake: He said he was "brilliant."

But instead of a foreign country doing us harm, Mr. Biden must have meant a foreign company. That's right. He just "misspoke." Still, the president is being tested — and he isn't passing the test (see Dick Morris). Thank goodness it isn't a foreign country testing him although one wonders about the snickers of those who wish us harm. Certainly they are taking note and we should stay alert.

Of course, the president, as a candidate, brought all this on himself, claiming that government can do everything, from "fixing health care" to stemming the "rise of the oceans" (see Althouse Blog). As a liberal, I'm sure he believes in karma, and the irony of him not being able to fix the Gulf oil spill even as he railed that government could make New Orleans whole immediately after Katrina should not be lost on anyone. Is this the gang you want running your health care? (See The Daily Caller regarding HHS already missing the new law's deadlines.)

So, as it is, it's a foreign company, BP, doing us harm, putting the young administration in (a real) crisis. Thank goodness it's only a company. Let this be a lesson to the government-knows-best crowd.

 

It's only a foreign company, but President Obama's inability to deal with the crisis leaves a lot to be desired, more doubt about government takeover of industries, and adversaries licking their chops.

What They Said: Liberals Gladly Admit To Redistributionist Agenda After The Fact

We wanted you to hear it for yourselves in case you haven't already, but over the last several days, the emboldened liberals have felt safe spilling the beans and being forthright. Finally, they're calling the government takeover of health care what it is: redistribution of income and wealth; control over individuals and companies; and even outright socialism. It started last week whenU.S. Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.), the most senior member of the House, told a radio show the bill was about "control" of "the people" (see previous post here). It's refreshing that they are so honest now, but we wish they would have been so during their town hall meetings last summer and throughout the entire debate and process on the bill. Instead, they acted undecided about it, flat out said the opposite of what's being said now — or hid. It reveals their disingenuousness.

Still, this wasn't without proper warning. There certainly were glimpses and peeps about their intentions in 2008 (see below). But, just so you will see and hear it for yourselves, as seeing is believing, here is a sample of recent frank admissions by prominent liberals: We start with U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; former Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; Al Sharpton; Vice President Joe Biden; and, we cap it off with a classic by the head man himself.

All are only seconds long, except the Dean interview which is about three minutes. It's instructive and worth it to hear all of them as well as the Dingell interview, especially for people who still think the takeover was altruistic. But, just for good measure, here's a recent endorsement of the health care takeover by Fidel Castro. Nice. Hard to keep your cover when he's exposing you (David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog.com).

Senator Baucus: make no mistake about it — this IS "income redistribution."

Howard Dean: He admits it's all about confiscation and redistribution, and only the governing elites decide what the "right balance" is; and the U.S. is way "out of balance."

 

Al Sharpton: We're all socialists now because socialism is what we voted for.

The Veep: Dingell is only part right. We're controlling the insurance companies, too! (Why not, government controls the banks, GM, AIG,  . . . .)

The Redistributor-In-Chief where it all started: Let's "spread the wealth around!"

Virginia News Stand: March 24, 2010

Annotations & Elucidations It's Up To Ken

It's official as of about 3:00 today: Virginia law prohibits the federal government from imposing an individual mandate on Virginians to buy health insurance. That's when Governor Bob McDonnell signed the Virginia Health Care Freedom legislation into law. Now, it's up to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to defend the feds' assault on us.

Here are some highlights of today's News Stand: It's not a day old and already there are problems with the children's portion of the takeover — that portion doesn't start until 2014. Hmm. Perhaps read the bill next time. So much for all the "good things" that begin immediately, Mr. President. Also, if health care, AIG, GM, the banking and insurance industries, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are enough, pretty soon the federal government will be the sole proprietor of student loans. Isn't that great? While they're at it, the White House says Joe Biden dropping the F-word yesterday was a good thing. Pure class, this bunch.

In Commentary and Analysis: It's always a good day when we feature Walter Williams. Today, we have him twice, along with the great Thomas Sowell. Tony Blankley chimes in, as well, mincing no words: they're socialists. 

News

McDonnell to sign Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act today (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Cuccinelli sues federal government to stop health-care reform law (Washington Post)

Virginia, 13 other states sue over health-care law (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

University, local lawmakers file suit over health-care bill (Lynchburg News & Advance)

For Beach activists, a goal: Stop clinic from opening (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Richmond firm receives lottery marketing contract (AP.org)

National News

Abortion activists fired up for 2010 (Politico/Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Stem-Cell Health Care Must Put the Patients First (Roll Call)

Senate writing final chapter to health care bill (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Problems already with child health care coverage (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Banks losing student loan business to government (AP/GOPUSA.com)

White House, experts: Health care suit will fail (AP/GOPUSA.com)

White House embraces Biden profanity (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Judge: No school prom but lesbian's right violated (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Breyer, Scalia explain why they often disagree (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Protests cancel Coulter speech in Ottawa (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Analysis

Is Health Care a Right (Walter E. Williams/GMU.edu)

Commentary

Sunday's Socialist Triumph (Tony Blankley/GOPUSA.com)

An Off-Budget Office? (Thomas Sowell/GOPUSA.com)

Constitutional Awakening (Walter E. Williams/GOPUSA.com)

Virginia News Stand: October 28, 2009

Annotations & Elucidations  No Obama Affect

Looks like there won't be much of an Obama affect in Virginia. Despite at least a month of radio ads, two weeks of television ads, two appearances by Veep Joe Biden, and now a second campaign stop (not to mention all that DNC cash) for Creigh Deeds, four more polls (Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Public Policy Polling and VCU's Commonwealth Poll) show not just a McDonnell landslide, but an unprecedented GOP landslide sweep. (The only other GOP sweep in Virginia history, in 1997, featured a close lieutenant governor's race won by John Hager over L.F. Payne.) Not that Obama seems to care. His speech in Norfolk was less than Obamaesque and not particularly rousing on the senator's behalf, with deprecating humor about not wearing his tie straight and something about his hair. It seems the best the POTUS could do was call him "not slick." About the last question that remains is whether the pending landslide will result in appreciable Republican gains in the House of Delegates. 

Meanwhile, the media hits keep coming from our Annual Gala Monday night. See the national attention we received from CitizenLink.org in our top story below.

News:

*Gov. Mike Huckabee Speaks at Virginia Gala (CitizenLink.org)

McDonnell's lead grows (Public Policy Polling Blog)

VCU poll gives Bob McDonnell healthy lead (Decision Virginia Blog/NBC12.com)

Polls: Big GOP lead in Va., N.J. tight (Politico.com)

News7 Poll: Republicans hold double digit leads in statewide contests (WDBJ-TV/WDBJ7.com)

Virginia Governor: McDonnell Stretches Lead To 13 (RasmussenReports.com)

Polls: Big GOP lead in Va.; N.J. race tight (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Deeds reaches for 'Obama energy' (Washington Post)

Obama rallies for Deeds in Va. (Washington Times)

At Norfolk rally, Obama urges backers to boost Deeds (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Obama makes pitch for Deeds at Norfolk rally (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot

Attorney general rivals are worlds apart despite geographic ties (The Daily Press)

GOP adds $40,000 to Gear's re-election effort (The Daily Press)

Valentine, Garrett rack up campaign donations (Lynchburg News & Advance)

Your voting history could end up in the neighbor's mailbox (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Diradour drops bid to challenge Cantor (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Hate-crimes bill spurs some worry from religious groups (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

National News:

Debating gay marriage (Washington Times)

Georgetown Outdoing Notre Dame In Church Scandals To Please Obama, Biden

It only figured that with his boss about to accept, controversially, an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame (more on that in a future post), Joe Biden would step back into his bishop's role to preach to all of us that, "You know there is no excuse for violence against a woman or child. There is no excuse." Except, of course, when you want to kill unborn children. But that's Bishop Biden for you, and yet another embarrassment by him to the Catholic Church and its pro-life teaching, as well as another Catholic university flaunting a directive of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (see CSN News).  So Vice President Bishop Biden goes to Georgetown University to get his corresponding JV award, as opening act for the POTUS' appearance at Notre Dame, from a pro-abortion group for his role in the Violence Against Women Act. What's wrong with that phrasing?

Though less publicized than the president's Notre Dame visit, Biden's appearance before this group, much less his acceptance of the award at Georgetown, is more scandalous to the Catholic Church in that Biden is Catholic and professes to believe in the Church's teaching on abortion — but remains pro-abortion in defiance of Church teaching. Then he has the audacity to lecture us on violence. So, both Georgetown and Notre Dame, are bringing shame to Catholic teaching on unborn life.

Said Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society:

"In many ways this honor is worse [than Notre Dame honoring Obama] because not only is Georgetown honoring a pro-abortion Catholic politician, but it is doing so in co-operation with a national pro-abortion lobby, Legal Momentum."  

But that's not all. Georgetown later admitted that it acquiesced to the White House and covered up references to Jesus and a Cross when the president spoke there two weeks ago. According to CNS:

"Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram 'IHS' — symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ — because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there."

A Georgetown spokeswoman told CNS:

""Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.'"

A reference to Jesus and a Cross out of context at a Catholic University? In the battle of sellouts to the Catholic Faith, Notre Dame may be getting more publicity, but Georgetown is winning more battles.

Who's Patriotic?

Some liberal politicians love to get mileage out of sanctimonious claims and faux rage that their patriotism has been challenged on this issue or that, never mind that it's their judgement which gets questioned. Typical leftist tactic — make up the meaning of what your opponent said, no matter how far the stretch, and say it was unfair, low and nasty in order to paint them as ogres.  So here's an interesting take on both the patriotism claim and on the tactic of redefining what words truly mean: Remember the late campaign when then-candidate Joe Biden, who tried to redefine Catholic Church teaching on abortion (see here), tried to redefine patriotism into meaning you must pay higher taxes? (If you don't, see the video below.)

Well, now: Exactly what does Vice President Biden now say about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (see Wall Street Journal) and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius (see Political Punch by Jake Tapper of ABC News), among the several other administration officials (Washington Times),who have skipped out on paying taxes? By the Veep's own definition, they are unpatriotic scoundrels.

Ah, yes. As April 15 draws near, it's nice to be reminded of who's patriotic and who's not. By their own words. No whining now as to who's making the claims and what they mean.

 

Joe Biden and the new patriotism.

Prophetic Article? A Must Read To Understand The Future

A Barack Obama presidency has me scared for a long time for a number of reasons. There's the pending economic socialism and the disregard for innocent human life, among many urgent issues. During the campaign the many to whom I expressed my concern would respond with the conventional wisdom that he'll mess it up and the country will swing back to conservatism in the mid-term elections, as in 1994. (That's a big "if," predicated on whether the so-called conservatives in Congress remain scared of their own shadows and remain addicted to "big-government conservatism.")  I would reply to those who responded that way, "Not so fast." Conventional wisdom and the old models don't apply anymore. With such large majorities in Congress and control of the White House, the extreme, Angry Left will ram through several initiatives to permanently seal its institutional advantages. For example, the liberal media, which crossed from only being biased to all out left wing advocacy this campaign, will be cemented by the passing of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, minimizing (if not completely eliminating) conservative talk radio. Advantage, Left Wing Media.

How about the so-called Freedom of Choice Act? Senator Obama said it's the first bill he would sign. It would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion. (No need for state legislatures, then, huh?) Gone would be all parental consent, notification and regulations against partial birth abortion. Advantage, the government grant and profit machine known as Planned Parenthood (see LifeSiteNews.com, here).

The union card check bill, if it becomes law (see The Las Vegas Sun, here), will end the secret ballot in union organizing campaigns. This will create countless new union shops. Aside from the economic peril of making American industry less competitive, this bill will add tens of thousands of new union members to union rolls — along with their compulsary dues, which go to union political action committees and used to elect leftist candidates. Advantage, corrupt Leftist union bosses.

The public education establishment, which largely dumbs down children K-12, and the college education establishment, which largely indoctrinates them because, by then, students have been conditioned to feel rather than think, will get new, large amounts of federal grants to run their politically correct campus societies, further preaching liberal doctrine under the guise of teaching, both in the classroom and in campus regulations such as speech codes. Advantage, Leftist educrats and teachers union leaders.

I could go on. But someone else has for me. Give me one more minute.

When I extolled this theory, some saw credence. Some thought the conventional wisdom would magically re-write history in two years. Many thought I was looking for the man on the grassy knoll. My response was that I would write a thesis on it. End of minute. I don't have to write the thesis. Quin Hillyer, of The American Spectator, has. I don't know whether to celebrate that my theory has been vindicated or mad that I didn't publish it and get compensated for the idea first. Regardless, Hillyer's "Saul Alinsky Takes the White House" (click here) is a must read to understand what Christian conservatives and those who believe in traditional family values and limited constitutional government will face starting January 20, 2009. It is something we need to be prepared for and ready to work against — work very hard against.

Here's an excerpt:

Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation. And the accused won't be able to look to the Supreme Court for help: Anthony Kennedy's "evolving standards" of justice will evolve to match the new zeitgeist, providing a 5-4 majority for the administration. Meanwhile, of course, Obama's other appointments will be filling up the rest of the judiciary at a rapid clip, with nobody able to stop them.

Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: "card check" legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents. Invasive IRS audits of conservative think tanks, other conservative 501 organizations, and PACs.

What Ohio officials did in rifling through so many of Joe Wurzelbacher's files will serve as ample precedent. (Just watch, by the way: Nobody ever will be effectively disciplined for the violation of Wurzelbacher's rights.)

And, only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine."

It's not just Joe the Plumber. Remember Barbara West, the Florida anchor who dared asked Joe Biden tough questions? Her station was blacklisted. Three newspapers who endorsed John McCain had their political reporters thrown off the Obama press plane (see The Washington Times, here). That's before he was elected! But surely there are bigger fish to fry — perhaps IRS and government intimidation of churches and pastors? By the way, what's with the 250,000 member security force Senator Obama promised? (See Blue Collar Muse, here.)

The coming socialist, one-party state only will be a crazy conspiracy theory if people fully understand what's at stake and decide to get engaged, stay vigilant, remain active and work hard. Work very hard — starting now.

Wake Up Virginia, Part 2: Obama Admits Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under His Plan

Last night we posted a breaking news story which soon became the talk of cable news and is dominating talk radio today (click here). A tape of an interview Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama gave in January to The San Francisco Chronicle has him saying he wants to put the coal industry out of business. More of the tape has come to our attention since. If you haven't heard, Senator Obama admits that under his "cap and trade" proposal  . . . well, why don't you listen for yourself:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

So, he doesn't mind mile-high energy prices? Then why was he blaming everyone and their brother for them earlier this year when oil and gas prices reached record levels? This is a man who is not afraid to speak his mind. He clearly has the most leftist agenda in modern American history; perhaps in all of American history. The question is, why aren't people taking him at his word? Senator Obama says he wants to make things fair in America. What's fair about the government targeting an industry vital to our way of life and those who work hard in such an industry? 

Here's an objective source: National Journal. It is regarded by both sides in Washington as non-partisan. (Full disclosure: Obama's press secretary worked there before joining his campaign.) It ranks Senator Obama as the most liberal senator in Congress. The startling aspect of this isn't that fact, because rankings can be relative. However, in this case, it says much that he is rated more liberal than even Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who for the record calls himself a socialist. Sanders is an independent, but caucuses with the Democrats. The third most liberal senator? Joe Biden.

One more quote voters should know about: It comes from Senator Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Obama wrote, "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

25 To 6 To 4 (Or, $250K To $200K To $160K To $140K . . . To $42K)

Remember the old hit from the band Chicago "25 To 6 To 4"? It was very catchy, but never made much sense to me. Now, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, appropriately enough from Chicago, has a tax plan. He wants to increase taxes on those he calls "the rich" and use that money to redistribute in the form of direct government checks to those who don't pay taxes. At first he defined the "rich" as those who make $250,000 or more per year. What he doesn't realize, or doesn't care about, is that many of those who take in that amount are small business owners whose gross receipts are $250,000 — which is counted as income before their business expenses. These people create the bulk of new jobs in our country and his tax plan would devastate them, killing countless jobs. (See our commentary on how taxes affect businesses, job creation and inflation.)

But just like some of those crazy rock or pop songs whose lyrics seem to change each time you hear it, so does Senator Obama's. Recently, he said he would tax people at $200,000. Then, Senator Gaffe-A-Lot, Joe Biden (click here and also here) the other day said it was the income level was $140,000. A top surrogate, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, said in an interview this weekend, that it's $140,000.

Well, what is it? Perhaps $42,000? That's the salary at which Senator Obama voted to raise taxes last year.

Bishop Biden Not Too Pastoral When Finally Asked Legit Questions By A Journalist

Finally. With only a little more than a week to go before America elects its next president and vice president, after two years of nonstop campaigning, one of the two on the Democrat ticket got some tough, but very fair, questions. Joe Biden, to whom the questions were asked, became unhinged, masqueraded the truth, attacked the messenger and changed the subject — as per the usual liberal attack M.O. (A good, short commentary on the incident, ironically, is the Canada Free Press, here, by American writer and "recovering liberal" Joe Lillpop.) If you haven't heard, the Internet, and even some of the Mainstream Media, is buzzing over a satellite television interview between Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and Orlando, Fla., WFTV news anchor Barbara West. It was conducted last week but only now is getting recognized outside that market. Ms. West asked, among other things, how can Barack Obama not be called a socialist when he wants "to spread the wealth around." Biden scoffed at the socialist suggestion and attacked Ms. West personally.

Ms. West, who once worked for the late ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings and had the typically normal credentials liberals love about the MSM. "Had" because not anymore. Not after she asked the hard, legitimate questions so many have for the most liberal national ticket ever assembled, but which have gone begging for months.

In fact, after the interview, the gruff Senator Biden, not at all acting as the compassionate and pastoral type as he did when he redefined the faith on Meet The Press several weeks ago, must have whined about his treatment to the "messiah" himself (not sure whether he whined that the "messiah" put him in such a untenable position with his policy pronouncements or whether he whined about getting beat up by someone seeking the truth) because the Obama-Biden campaign immediately cancelled all interviews with WFTV, including one already scheduled with Mrs. Biden.

If Senator Biden thinks these questions were tough, there are several more we'd like to hear asked of him. For example, when he sarcastically asks Ms. West "Who is writing your questions?" in response to her "socialist" question, we would have replied to the caught and admitted plagiarizer, "Senator, who is writing your answers?" Look at this old NBC News report from Biden's first run for president in 1987. Oh yeah, one of the men mentioned in the report, then-British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock, whose speeched Biden plagerized . . . is a socialist!

When he completely contorted his remark from last week that Barack Obama is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief to somehow mean he was saying John McCain wasn't ready because, as Biden put it, Senator McCain had been wrong on some foreign policy issues, we would have asked him about how many times his views were disasterously wrong. Never mind that Senator Biden's charges are false, let's look at "wrong" by the man chosen by Senator Obama because of his so-called foreign policy expertise:

Wrong on the nuclear freeze.

Wrong on aiding freedom fighters in Central America.

Wrong on deploying missles to NATO countries.

Wrong on giving in to the demands of the Soviet Union.

Wrong on missile defense.

Wrong on the Gulf War.

Wrong on the troop surge in Iraq.

Wrong on partitioning Iraq.

Wrong on drilling offshore.

Wrong on the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom.

How much more wrong can one be and still run for vice president?

But that's just us. Ms. West more than held her own. Now, the Obama-Biden campaign, the epitome of tolerance, won't give any more interviews to this WFTV. That's the way to take your ball and go home!

Here's the interview in its entirety. It's about 4:30 minutes long.

Economics Even The Chinese Communists Understand

There is a lot of talk about the economy these days by candidates, commentators, journalists, financial professionals and anyone else with a camera, microphone or Web page. These issues are important for families who are stressed with providing for their children and even their older parents. One complaint people have is that many types of jobs once prevalent in America now are done overseas. This is true and it makes the corporations that move those jobs overseas easy targets for demagogues who do not understand economics or the purpose of a business enterprise, which is to make a profit (creating jobs is byproduct of profit, not the other way around). The big target lends to the easy caricature of certain companies as villains, and demagogues always look for villains to prey upon the fears of people who are uncertain about their futures. So, how to slay the villain? In a political/economic sense, it's to hit them with higher taxes — that'll teach'em. Besides, "paying taxes" is the new "patriotism," according to Joe Biden, and you better learn that now (See YouTube video here). Nothing could be more misguided and nothing could be a more serious threat to the economic well being of the country and American families looking to improve their lives. Understanding why it's misguided is something we all understand at heart, though it gets lost in the anxiety of troubled times and easy to strike out at undeserved blame and believe in false solutions.

Everyone knows (or should remember) that corporations don't pay taxes — they simply pass the costs they incur through taxes to the price of their goods and services — which we pay at the pump, the store, the restaurant (see this short list of prices affected by taxes). It's that simple. So companies look at taxes as an expense, just as they look at energy, machinery, maintenance, supplies, etc., as expenses. If it can lower expenses  by moving a factory near a supplier, companies do it. We see it all the time. So doesn't it make sense that if their tax expenses are greater here, than say in Ireland which has a low, flat tax, they will move where they can cut costs? Raise the corporate tax all you want to get even with those evil businesses and not only will you lose more jobs, you create more inflation by jacking up the prices they inevitably will charge. So we get hit from both sides.

How to solve the conundrum? Simply lower the corporate tax rate. You know the U.S. corporate tax rate must be high if it is more profitable for some companies to move operations overseas rather than have the convenience of domestic operations and transportation, etc. Exactly how high is the U.S. corporate tax rate? It is the second highest of the 30-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at 39.3 percent (see list here). Only Japan is higher. Communist China, which is not an OECD member, has a 25 percent rate (see here). Furthermore, see how our individual states stack up against the OECD. It's none too pretty.

This is basic economics and it is a direct reflection on the travesty of public education that more people do not understand these simple, basic concepts, which leaves them open to persuasion by the play to emotional demagougery by liberal politicians. In 1972, George McGovern ran on a similar platform to Barack Obama's: Raise taxes on the rich and corporations and give everyone else a paltry redistributionist check of a few hundred dollars. He lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. Just losing to Richard Nixon was an accomplishment. To get comprehensively dismantled by Nixon shows how out of touch McGovern was (and there was an unpopular war, then, too, that people wanted over). That Obama's almost cloned economic plan has not made him a laughing stock is remarkable. Has America's economic IQ disintegrated that fast? (See short, but instructive blog post from the Cato Institute, here.)

Obama showed his utter lack of economic IQ in the second debate when he responded to John McCain's (see here) charge that his plan to tax people who make more than $250,000 would kill small businesses by saying, "there are only a few small businesses" that make that much. Really? Many small businesses are incorporated so that the owner's income is the business' gross income. That's why expensing deductions and low taxes are essential for this sector of the economy which produces 70 percent of American jobs. Obama's retort was one of a man who's never worked in the for-profit world. If a small business isn't grossing $250,000, it's not in business at all — at least, not in the hiring/job creation part of business (i.e., it's a self-employed, individual contractor or consultant). 

In fact, according to Americans for Tax Reform, three out of every four businesses in the top 5 percent tax bracket is a small business. There are 26 million small businesses that employ 116 million Americans and hundreds of thousands of those businesses — sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations and family farms — who pay taxes at the individual or joint-filing rates would get hammered under his "tax the richest  5 percent" plan. Forget their employees. The families of the family-owned businesses, who are paying for college, a car payment, a mortgage, etc., would face real devastation. (National Review adds more light to the conversation, here.)

We've all heard the expression we get the government we deserve. When it comes to the economy — and therefore opportunity and financial security for families — it comes down to this: When the Chinese communists undertand tax policy better than Americans, we deserve the economy we get.

Why Biden Only Made "Bishop"

The reason Joe Biden has only made it up to "bishop" in the liberal ideological theology chain is, quite simply, he doesn't have the juice of "pope" Pelosi who is "trying to save the world" (see short YouTube video here) or, of course, his boss, the "messiah" himself, Barack Obama. Alas, Senator Biden is limited, even by John Edwards' standards, who, in 2004, retro prophesied that Christopher Reeve would have been able to get up out of his wheel chair and walk again if John Kerry had been president at the time

Yesterday, during a routine part of any campaign appearance, where the candidate thanks local office holders and dignitaries, "bishop" Biden asked a wheelchair confined state senator to stand up to be recognized and continued to insist when he didn't (see short YouTube video here). Ooooops! This from a man who has "a higher IQ than you!" (see vintage Biden bluster and arrogance here). 

We suggest that from now on, Joe, you leave the heavy lifting to "messiah" Obama, you know, the guy who can turn an everyday expression into an ugly sexist insult to a sitting American governor (see short YouTube video here). Now, that's miraculous.