Sunday, April 13, 2008

Obama’s First Real Policy Statements?...
















.

Until recently Barack Obama has managed to maintain being the most nebulous of candidates, very looooong on verbiage (yes, “just words”) and very short on substance.

He’s worked hard to resist revealing either his core beliefs OR his policy positions.

That’s why what much of the MSM is now dismissing as a mere “verbal gaffe,” is so revealing. It gives an insight into BOTH Obama’s core beliefs, while showing how little substance his core beliefs hold.

Last week in San Francisco, Obama was taped saying, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The firestorm was instantaneous and inopportune, given that both the Pennsylvania and North Carolina Primaries are upcoming. In both states, bumper stickers with “I’m not bitter,” have been circulated.

But the real problem isn’t merely the words Obama chose, but the sentiments that he still stands by – that those who don’t embrace the inane, cock-eyed liberalism that he does are motivated by frustration and take those frustrations out by supporting , in his view, "misguided' things like gun rights (the basic right to SELF-defense), the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) and anti-immigrant sentiments. In short, he pretty much called Red State Americans, “A collection of gun toting, religious zealots and racial bigots.” Hmmmm, not exactly the best tack on which to cull their votes, now is it?

Again, it’s NOT the “words,” it’s the sentiments that Obama admits to still clinging to that ARE the problem!

In those 34 words he expressed a deep-seated revulsion for America’s Constitution. How else can one explain an attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, like that? How many other parts of our Bill of Rights does Obama revile?

So the 1st Amendment’s protection of Freedom OF religion is dismissed by Barack Obama as a mere boon to religious zealots and an impediment to everyone else. The Second Amendment that merely affirms the INNATE or Natural Right of ALL free individuals to violent self-defense, when THEY deem necessary, is also superfluous, at least in the eyes of Barack Obama!

But there’s more...MUCH MORE!

He appears to assail all those opposed to open borders and ILLEGAL immigration as “anti-immigrant, when all legitimate opinion polls show that over 80% of those folks (which comprise over 75% of Americans) are motivated by a support for “the rule of law.”

So, any American who supports border enforcement and enforcing even our existing immigration laws, is in the eyes of the Obama’s, “vile racial bigots.”

And what’s with the “anti-trade sentiments,” crack?

That, in fact, is the most quizzical of the Obama policy statements. After all, a misguided liberal who reviles both the First and Second Amendments (and perhaps much of the rest of the Bill of Rights) and supports open borders isn’t all that rare, nor surprising, BUT one who campaigns AGAINST Free Trade, while pandering to Left-wing anti-trade kooks, excoriating that viewpoint, in an apparent throw-away line, certainly is food for thought.

It certainly puts the reports of Obama aide, Austan Goosbee reassuring the Canadian government, back in February, that Obama’s current NAFTA position was just talk, in a much clearer light.

So is Obama merely telling Left-wing anti-Free Traders what they want to hear (LYING) just to get their votes. Why else would he seek to demonize that long-held Leftist viewpoint by attaching to those they revile on the Right?

Is it possible that he really reviles naïve Left-wing Americans as much, if not more than he does all those “gun-toting, religious zealots” on the Right?

That last portion of those 34 words certainly seems to indicate that that is the case!

8 comments:

heidianne jackson said...

actually, it's not that confusing. talk with someone in a union and you'll see bho's just touting the company line.

they believe that nafta (and other policies like it) are anti-trade. anti-american trade that is. they believe that the promotion of free trade applies only to protecting "the american worker".

well, unless you're then discriminating against illegal immigrants... i actually had a neighbor tell me that the reason they are FOR open borders but against nafta is that to be against open borders is raciest. when i pointed out that open borders accomplished more trauma for american workers than nafta, i was told "no, no. you're wrong."

that's it. period. to be fof nafta is to be against free trade. huh?

JMK said...

There's no confusion Heidianne, as THESE are indeed, Barack Obama's first real policy and position statements.

His jab at "anti-traders" is a jab at the Left! As trade unionists, at least the leaders, not so much the rank and file, oppose Free Trade...as Obama has often claimed to oppose it himself!

I feel bad for your neighbor Heidianne. That neighbor has swallowed a line and doesn't have the intelligence needed to defend it.

It's little wonder such people often wind up spouting conflicting viewpoints.

In fact YOU'RE right that ILLEGAL immigration has a far more pervasive and negative impact on ALL American wage rates, while things like H-1B Visas actually address a vital problem we face, called Structual Unemployment (too few Americans trained to do some very technical jobs that need doing) and each H-1B Visa actually creates about six other ancillary American jobs.

The Dems problem is that Free Trade has created far more American jobs and has lowered prices for American consumers, creating a higher standard of living for most Americans.

But many trade Unions oppose it and so Hillary acts as though she has opposed it from the start despite the fact that NAFTA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by her husband in January of 1994.

Obama has gone further, threatening to scuttle NAFTA unless it's renegotiated (apparently more in our favor) but then sent an aide to Canada to make sure they understood that that was just talk.

It was a way for Obama to smack anti-trade liberals by erroneously associating the anti-Free trade stance with the Right.

Most liberals appear to be so dumb as not to have even noticed!

Rachel said...

Suddenly, Obama is now feeling how W feels when someone mentions those "34 words" ( W's case it was 16)
People who said that the start of the 08 election were right. At least for my side of the fence (sigh). The more O or Hill talks without a teleprompter, the more embarrassing gaffes they make.

Meanwhile (so far) all McCain has had to do is sit back and prep for whoever survives Denver.
Suddenly, I feel sorry for Denver

JMK said...

Rachel, I'd like to call it a mere gaffe, but he's stood by the sentiments and has only expressed regret over the wording.

But it's the sentiments that bother me!

I want a Democrat to reach out to working people, I want a reason to believe in the Democratic party again.

But every time they call across the board income tax rate cuts "tax cuts for the rich," every time I look at the fine print and see that "the rich" are folks like my wife and I, largely because we both work in a large metropolitan area, where the cost of living is high and salaries don't stretch far, every time I hear them excoriate SELF DEFENSE (a basic and inviolate RIGHT of ALL free people) and every time I hear them espouse an open borders viewpoint NOT based on any facts, but upon charges of "xenophobia" and "bigotry" they make me sick.

Bottomline, as far as I can tell, I'm blacker than Barry (Barack) Obama. I've worked in the inner city (the South Bronx) for two decades, so at least I've had real contact with "the poor" the Dems claim to care so much about. I work for a living and I wasn't raised by well-off grandparents who shepherded me into Ivy League privilege.

I know there are romantics out there that like to cling to the idea that privilege in this country is based on skin color, but the FACT of the matter is that MONEY and CONNECTIONS have always trumped mere skin color.

Obama is a fine speaker, but at heart he's an empty suit elitist in the mold of AlGore and John Kerry...and G W Bush!

He SHOULD be better than those guys....it SHOULD be easy to be, but he's NOT! At least not much.

The Democrats have no chance of reaching people like me until they jetison the irrational and illiberal (anti-business, pro-tax, pro-big government) pablum they've been spewing out for the last four decades.

There was a moment in Obama's "race speech" in which I thought he'd grasped something special - the concept that everyone has grivances, but we can't distill government down to a redresser of past grievances. Sadly, I seem to have been mistaken.

Perhaps it was merely a bout of indigestion on his part.

Roadhouse said...

Obamma has become his own "right wing attack machine". As a member of said machine, I should thank him for doing some of the work for me.

I wrote a little piece about this tonight myself.

Seane-Anna said...

Great critique of what the big O really believes, JMK! He's sounding scarier and scarier every day.

Uncle Joe said...

Nice post. Birds of a feather flock together. It's really hard to accept all of the bad company around BHO as though they have no effect on him or that he doesn't share their views. In fact, the people he as spent his time with over the last two decades don't spend a lot of time with people who don't agree with them.

These statements by BHO come out of him because that's what's in him. If you shake a pepsi, pepsi comes out. If you shake an apple tree apples fall out. If you shake a liberal extremist, elitism and anti-Americanism comes out. It's just nature at work.

Celular said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Celular, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-celular-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

American Ideas Click Here!