Libertarian Party of Pasco County, Florida

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Libertarian Party of Pasco County, Florida






Barack Obama Is a Big Fat Liar
Obama spent $44 million attacking McCain for an idea that Obama no longer opposes.

By Jim Geraghty

Ever since Barack Obama declared his candidacy for president, it’s been easy — and great fun — to spotlight when his promises and statements come with “expiration dates.” The list is long: Public financing. Renegotiating NAFTA. His promise to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. His inability to disown Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The release of detainee photos. Denouncing Turkey for genocide.

Flip-flops are nothing new in politics, but every once in a while, a president breaks a promise or an important pledge on such an epic level that it defines him, at least in part: “Read my lips: No new taxes.” “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we. Even “I will never lie to you.

Barack Obama’s sudden about-face on taxing employer-provided health insurance deserves to rank among these classics. Not because it’s as laughable as Bill Clinton’s, or as emphatic as George H. W. Bush’s, but because it takes a certain moral venality to casually adopt, as president, a position that was a dominant theme of your argument for why your opponent should not be president.

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign spent $44 million on 16 different television ads hammering John McCain on this idea, according to research by Evan L. Tracey, founder and president of Campaign Media Analysis Group, a TNS Media Intelligence company.

“This message was a central theme and a significant percentage of the Obama campaign’s advertising in 2008,” Tracey said. His organization estimated last November that Obama’s campaign spent $250 million on television advertising, meaning that about 17 percent of all of Obama’s ads were denouncing McCain for this proposal.

The ads left no wiggle room:

Announcer: John McCain on health care.

John McCain: “I want to give every American a 5,000-dollar refundable tax credit.”

Announcer: Here’s the truth.

Barack Obama: “He says that he’s going to give you a 5,000-dollar tax credit. What he doesn’t tell you is that he is going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever. So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.”

Announcer: John McCain. Instead of fixing health care, he wants to tax it.

Barack Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

Sometimes the ads keyed the issue to a particular swing state:

Announcer: In Nevada, we work hard, and many of us get health insurance through our jobs. John McCain’s health plan would tax our health benefits as income. Taxing health benefits for the first time ever, meaning higher taxes for us. Under McCain, insurance companies prosper. Nevadans pay. Taxing our health-care benefits. An idea we should send back to Arizona. John McCain doesn’t get Nevada. He doesn’t get us.

Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Obama won Nevada, 55 percent to 43 percent, a dramatic improvement on John Kerry’s 47.9 percent four years earlier.

The back-and-forth on the proposal in the vice-presidential debate provided the visuals and audio for another ad:

[Text]: McCain’s health plan. What she said.

Sarah Palin: “He’s proposing a 5,000-dollar tax credit for families so that they can get out there, and they can purchase their own health-care coverage.”

[Text]: What she didn’t say.

Joe Biden: “Well, you know how John McCain pays for his 5,000-dollar tax credit? He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health-care plan through your employer. Taxing your health-care benefit. I call that the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”

[Text]: Taxing health benefits for the first time ever.

Gwen Ifill: “Thank you, Senator.”

[Text]: The McCain health tax. What they can’t explain.

Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Of course, it wasn’t just ads. Obama hammered the point again and again in his stump speech. On September 12, 2008, while appearing in Dover, N.H., Obama said:

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That’s a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle-class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That’s his idea of change.

Notice there’s no mention of income level, or certain limited circumstances in which it would be acceptable to tax health benefits. No suggestion that the proposal might be something he would accept a compromise on. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

In early October he went even further, calling McCain’s plan “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values.”

On Capitol Hill, however, Democrats have long liked the idea as a new form of tax revenue. Obama’s relentless denunciation of the proposal would seem to preclude his signing it into law, but “would seem to” is not “does.” Back in March, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table,” and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax “as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.”

Finally, during Wednesday’s p.r. push for his health-care plan, Obama refused to rule out the proposal that he once said made John McCain unfit for office.

“I don’t want to prejudge what they’re doing,” he said about Senate proposals to tax workers who get expensive insurance policies. “I have identified the ways that I think we should finance this. I think Congress should adopt them. I’m going to wait and see what ideas ultimately they come up with.”

Poof! What was once “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values” now is not worthy of prejudgment.

Where does John McCain get his reputation back? And if Obama will do an about-face on this issue, is there any promise he’s made that is not approaching an inevitable expiration date?

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAzZjYzNGJmYTM0Y2RlNmUzYjc4ZTFlMDljM2YzYjM
 

Watch lists, guns and government
by Bob Barr
as published in The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM

The secret government "Terrorist Watch List," reportedly already swelled to more than 1.1 million names, will have an addendum, if gun control advocates in Congress have their way. This new addendum — also to be cloaked in secrecy — would empower the U.S. Attorney General to deny a person the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm.

While it is not surprising that some members of Congress are again using fear of terrorism to implement a gun-control agenda, the openly unconstitutional legislative language proponents are employing is troubling.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort in the Senate, while another well-known gun control advocate — Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is directing the House initiative. They have introduced identical bills — the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009." This proposal would give the attorney general the power to unilaterally and in secret develop a watch list of persons believed to be unworthy of possessing a firearm or any explosive.

This new "dangerous terrorist" watch list would include names based not on hard evidence of criminal activity, but on nothing more than the subjective conclusion by the attorney general that a person is "appropriately suspected" (whatever that means) of engaging in some manner of assisting or preparing for acts of domestic or international terrorism. The American people would never be privy to what criteria might be employed by the attorney general to determine whether someone is an "appropriate suspect," and they would have no way of knowing why they might be denied the ability to purchase a firearm.

If a person were to be refused "permission" to purchase a firearm or explosive, and if they subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court to find out why, the government still could keep such information secret. In other words, the attorney general could deny a U.S. citizen the ability to own a firearm, and never have to give the reason.

For legislators like Lautenberg and King, who apparently have absolute faith in unelected government officials to make the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times (and never be required to explain those decisions), one has only to consider the checkered history of post-9/11 "terrorist" watch lists to see the folly of such perspective. Stories abound of persons denied the ability to board a commercial aircraft, or greatly delayed in being allowed on board, for no reason other than their name erroneously appeared on some "watch list." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have been among this not-so-elite group.

A report earlier this year by the FBI's inspector general chronicled extensive internal problems with the terrorist watch list maintained by that agency. The IG found numerous examples of inaccuracies, incomplete entries, out-of-date information and inclusion of information "unrelated to terrorism." While the inconvenience of not being able to board an airliner for a business trip or a vacation can be a real headache, being refused the ability to purchase a firearm to protect one's life clearly raises the stakes.

The government already has remedies already at its disposal to keep firearms out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. Under existing federal law, there are numerous categories of persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; including persons in violation of immigration laws, convicted felons, illicit drug users and others. And if a person truly is a known or suspected terrorist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — as the federal law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing the nation's gun laws — certainly should be made aware of that information. We don't need a secret, anti-Second Amendment watch list to implement effective law enforcement in America.

###


Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

 

July Tea Parties

The first one is on July 3rd on US 19 at Gulfview Square Mall and Embassy Blvd. from 4pm until 7pm.

The second one is on July 4th in Dade City at the Courthouse from 2pm until 4pm. The city will be hosting "Sparklebration" from 3pm until 9pm at the Pasco County Fairgrounds.

 

John Baeza from LEAP Speaking at July 7th Meeting

At our July 7th meeting we are privileged to have John Baeza speaking. He is a representative of Law Enforcement Officers Against Prohibition (LEAP). This is their website http://www.copssaylegalizedrugs.com for more information. Mr. Baeza has spoken at many Libertarian Party meetings and we look forward to hearing him speak about drug prohibition and its problems. Please join us for an enlightening evening. If you have any questions, please call at 727-207-5947.

 Emberlea Bruce-McCulligh

Chair, Libertarian Party of Pasco County

 

 

There are 14 spots available for a roundtrip flight to Washington, DC for the September 12th Tea Party.

Contact Joanne Griffing at 1-888-512-2558

 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 2

What types of guns can we sacrifice for "gun control"?
 

Events Calendar

Upcoming Events

Latest Events

Published: 26.06.2009 16:52
03.07.2009 14:00 - 16:00

Published: 01.04.2009 18:15
07.04.2009 19:00 - 21:00