William Owens Jr.: Obama’s speeches don’t talk much about history
Column by William Owens Jr.
History is rarely reflected upon by Obama or included in his stump speeches unless it is biographical. Why? Obama thinks we need to redistribute wealth, and history has shown it does not work (just ask Eastern Europe). Should Obama cite Marx or any other socialist philosophers he subscribes to, history would be stacked against him. Instead, he is banking on the ignorance of the American people and cashing in on their emotions.
The rhetorical speeches of Obama vehemently promise more money to people rather than more character-oriented leadership in government. Instead of true vision, Obama offers handouts. Is change in our pockets what Obama really thinks we want, or is it character change that America needs?
There is no doubt middle-class families could use some form of financial relief to smooth out the rough edges, but it will not be tax hikes, nationalized health care, government-run education, or oil gushing through our streets that get “America back on track.” What will get America back on track, is the revival of the very virtues upon which our nation was founded, and not a repackaged version of Marxism.
Obama’s speechwriters must struggle to find support for his policies from the framers of our Constitution or the signatories of the Declaration of Independence. With so much talk about what is good for America, certainly he could quote some of our forefathers, such as James Madison who said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government: upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
The problem is Obama’s policies go directly against the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the virtues ascribed to by our Founding Fathers. It is impossible for Obama to cite our forefathers without exposing his true disdain for their beliefs.
Obama cannot champion life, when he has sought to systematically destroy it through his votes on abortion. He cannot champion liberty, when his Marxist policies seek to strangle it. He cannot champion the pursuit of happiness when he is adamant on erecting roadblocks to the American dream.
Obama’s only approach is to convert free thinking people to government thinking people. The undercurrent of his oratory is not celebrating the ability of Americans to govern themselves, but rather a sales pitch on why we need more government to care for us.
Samuel Adams, the father of the American Revolution, said, “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. The greatest security from enslavement in a country is virtue or morality among the people.”
Tyranny is not an accident, it’s an incident, and it starts from within. It can only happen when citizens surrender what is rightfully theirs to an idea that they can subjugate self-government to the management of others. This is what Obama and the whole liberal movement does not want the American people to understand. Marxism garners better reception when it is wrapped up and packaged with the platitude of “hope.” The package may look good, but the tyranny inside is worse than a pipe bomb.
I’m a staunch free-press guy (good for me, working at a place called the Free Press). Columns like this one, sadly, take advantage of the idea that ideas should compete in the marketplace because the basis for the ideas being expressed here is fiction, not fact.
Barack Obama is not a Marxist. It’s called Keynesian economics. Look it up. It worked for us for 50 years, dragged us out of the Great Depression, and it will drag us out of the recession that we’re in now because of 30 years of wealth-redistributing Reaganomics.
He’s not raising taxes on those save the superwealthy. Another mischaracterization that Obama haters like to perpetuate. Since 99 percent of the people reading this item will see their tax burdens go down under Obama, it’s incorrect to talk about tax increases with him.
Don’t cite James Madison talking about individual liberties to buttress your case for the social-engineering of so-called social conservatives. Little-l libertarians like myself are insulted by this slur of Madison and the other Founders.
Again, I’m all for a free press, and advancing the public discourse on the issues of the day. I chafe at having my trust and the public trust misappropriated in the manner that we have seen here in this column today.
Chris,
With all due respect to you, I just don’t believe the tax burden will go down for 99% of the people reading this column if Obama becomes president. You can call me an Obama hater if you want but I just don’t believe it.
You don’t have to believe me.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
- http://augustafreepress.com/2008/09/12/business-and-economy-comparing-the-obama-and-mccain-tax-plans/
The analysis in these links is from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Obama’s tax increases affect the top 1 percent of wage earners. If you make evenin the area of $600,000 a year you get a small tax break under Obama.
The bulk of the McCain tax cuts are for that top 1 percent. The average $3 million-a-year income-earner gets a $269,000 tax break under McCain. Under Obama, that same person pays an additional $700,000 in taxes.
There’s a reason they want you to believe that they’re cutting taxes and that Obama is raising taxes. Their key voting bloc might be middle-class social conservatives who vote against their economic interests for the sake of putting Republicans in office who then don’t do what they promise they’re going to do on abortion and the family, but their bread-and-butter is the ultrawealthy who don’t care how hellish it is for everybody else as long as they don’t have to pay taxes.
Don’t believe their hype.
The problem is that I don’t believe the hype from Obama. I do not believe that what he says he will do today is what he is going to do when he is in office.
And what can I say to that, Wayne? Obama tells you he’s going to push tax cuts for the working class and middle class, and you say you don’t believe him. McCain outright lies to you and tells you that Obama is going to raise taxes on the working class and middle class to cover how the McCain plan gives exorbitant tax breaks for millionaires and gives the working class and middle class nominal tax breaks. You choose to believe the guy who is lying to you and in the same breath accuse the other guy. Your choice.
Chris,
I think Obama has told quite a few lies that I am just not going to go into because they go back aways and I just don’t feel up to getting in a heated debate. I think he has told some lies that have not been proven to be lies but common sense tells me they were lies. I can not prove he lied, but I believe he did. So we can get into a discussion about lies if you want. But I think Obama has told his fair share. I think you choose to believe Obama and that is ok. I am more inclined to believe McCain.
Might need more than that, Wayne. Specifics. Otherwise I’m going to have to take that last comment down. Not out of disrespect to you, but out of respect to our other readers. The words “lie” and “liar” are not to be thrown around casually. McCain has lied repeatedly when he says that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. If you or anybody else is going to accuse Obama of telling lies or lying or being a liar, we’re going to need more than just a blanket statement.
Again, no disrespect intended to you, Wayne.
I believe he lied about never being in that church when Rev Wright made those remarks. I have no proof but I believe that is an outright lie. You can take my comments down if you want. I never claimed to have proof. I just claimed to be giving an opinion.
It’s fine to give an opinion, but the way I was raised, calling someone a liar or saying that they lied is serious business. I stand behind my belief that McCain is lying when he says that Obama is going to raise taxes on the working class and middle class. That one’s not hard; the fact-checkers out there have all come down hard on McCain on that one, even as he repeats the lie on the campaign trail.
You wrote above that you think Obama has told quite a few lies, and then you give us one that is something that others have raised question about as well. I will agree that where one stands on that one is a matter of conjecture. The word “lies” is plural, though, meaning more than one.
Note that I have not issued a blanket “McCain tells lies” or “McCain is a liar” or anything like that. I was very specific because in one instance it is known that the McCain people have been perpetuating a lie. I guess I expect those who take part in our forums to hold themselves to higher standards than simply, Well, that’s what I think.
Chris,
I honestly stated an opinion. I did not write an article as fact. I am posting an opinion. Part of your job as a journalist, and you have done it well, is to document why you feel the way you do. I am not a journalist and I am stating an opinion. Right now that is the example I can think of and I admit I don”t document why I feel the way I do. I see things, and I think, I just don’t believe that. Right now that is my only example but I see it all the time. Maybe after watching some more of this on TV I will come up with more examples. In my comments I believe every one of them stated that “I believe” Obama has told many lies. I never stated it as fact I made a point to state it as my belief.
I believe in lots of things I can’t prove and I apologize for only being able to think of one example at this time.
By the way I never said he is a liar. I said I BELIEVE he lies. There is a difference.
What bothered me, Wayne, about your post on lies is how many times you used the word “lies.” It was almost pornographic, if you know what I’m saying there. Gratuitous is another term that might apply.
As I’ve said here in this thread, and at other times in other threads, I was raised to believe the word lie and its derivatives to be an important word. If nothing else comes of this, I hope I can persuade you to adopt a similar philosophy in the future.
Chris,
I only used the word lies because I was replying to a post where you said McCain lied. Sad to say but I think a lot of polititions do lie.
Since you’re still egging this on, Wayne, let’s get to the heart of the matter.
You claim above that there is a difference in what you had to say because you said you “believe” that he lies. Which is saying that you’re giving yourself cover because you have a right to an opinion, and if you want to believe that he lies, you have a right to say that you believe that he lies.
Taking this another way, then, I could say that I believe that John McCain was programmed by his North Vietnamese captors to be a Manchurian candidate, and while I can’t prove it, I believe it, and here it is, world, you’d better accept it, because I believe it. Or, well, you know, the tabloids are now saying that Sarah Palin had an affair a few years ago, and, come to think of it, I believe that, and I’m going to go on every blog and website I can and state it as if it were fact, because I believe it, and I am entitled to my opinion.
Would you like me to go on? Or are you starting to get a sense of how far we can all go with this?
For the sake of democracy, I hope that we can all realize that there is fiction and there is what some people want to believe and then there is fact, and those of us who have self-respect and respect for others will deal in facts.
Ok Chris since you are egging this on…I did not reply last night because I did not read your post until this morning. Oh come on Chris. I was responding to an opinion of yours that John McCain had lied. I said I believe Obama does too and I do believe he lied many times when he was questioned if he knew about Rev Wrights sermons. Many times, not just one. I think there may not have been proof, but I believe there was reasonable evidence to come to my conclusion. That example was not good enough for you and that is fine. But it does not compare to the comments you just said…and you know it doesn’t. I may have only given an example of one thing but I believe a whole lot of conservatives agree with me that he lied.
Sure I could come on here and say that the sky is red if I wanted to. But if I say something that stupid then nobody is going to believe me so what good does it do me. Your readers have enough sense to judge for themselves whether or not they agree with me and whether they belive I have a valid reason for believing as I do.
by the way Chris, for somebody who hates the word lie…you were the one who used it first.
Wayne, friend, seriously. The McCain lie on taxes is a lie. That is not an opinion. The McCain campaign has repeatedly stated that Obama will raise your taxes. The Obama plan will actually reduce taxes for all but the upper 1 percent of income-earners. The links that I provided above indicate that nonpartisan observers have verified this. This is not an opinion; this is fact.
You have stated repeatedly on this thread that Obama tells lies, and having had a day to think about it, you can still only produce a single instance of where you think he might have lied.
I will stick to facts, and it is obvious that you and many McCain supporters – and indeed the McCain campaign itself – will stick to fiction. That much is clear here. Your response to a subject that you yourself initiated to discuss Obama’s tax plan was not to offer a counter to what had been stated regarding his tax plan or its effects, but to state blindly that Obama tells lies and then offering a flimsy at best example to buttress even that.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and McCain supporters out there reading this thread ought to similarly be ashamed.
I am not one bit ashamed of myself Chris. I am a lot of things, some of them not so good but I am not one bit ashamed.
I am trying to hold my tongue here and not get personal…so I am going to surrender. Bye
Thank you for not getting personal. After saying that somebody that you don’t know tells a lot of lies and then not being able to back it up with facts.
I think the McCain and Obama and Barr and Nader supporters and others who are still making up their minds will agree on this – that this election is too important to trade in this kind of gutter innuendo.
chris, it is my belief that you are being a bully here and as an occasional reader, i am quite disappointed.
again.
this is YOUR paper. but you take your role to a whole different level. i have been struggling to see any objectivity (or willingness to have an open mind) and it has become increasingly more difficult to find it, especially over the past year.
truly, i can’t believe you would go through such diatribe on the subject of lying when you and i have had a similar discussion on an unrelated topic and you were adamant that you believed what you believed and further discussion on the matter wasn’t relevant to you. Although I offered to provide facts on that topic, you weren’t interested.
we will once again agree to disagree, i’m sure, but i wanted you to know that as a reader, i am exercising my freedom of choice and moving on.
best wishes to you and to Crystal.
Thank you Michelle for you defense at the risk of Chris’ anger. Because of what Chris said I decided to find other examples of Obama lying. This comes form a non-partison group that I think Cris uses sometimes.
Fact Check.com. The link is below. If Chris allows me to keep posting i will find more just to prove to him that I can.
I hd never intended to get Chris so angry…I was hoping for a discussion. Anyway…here is what I found and according to Chris non-partison is the key here:
Thanks again Michelle…I was beginning to feel like i was being bombarded with his anger.
Check the link for my second bit of evidence Chris…I will lookk for more.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html
I have to agree too. Chris got angry with me a while back when I brought up the Reverand Write stuff. So when i saw it brought up here I just went oooh no, here we go again.
This did not technically come out of his mouth since it was an ad…even though he did approve the ad…but somebody in this thing sure didn’t tell the whole truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html
At least now I have fulfilled your request Chris for more examples. I can stop here from now. I never denied whether McCain lies or not but I think I have found at least more than one example of Obama lying and an example where he approved a message from his campaign that was a lie. I figure these won’t meet your standards but it is a try.
I tried posting this before and for some reason it didn’t go, so I’m trying it again.
And just to flesh out what Wayne had said about the Obama/Wright situation:
Before breaking ties with Jeremiah Wright, Obama – who attended this church for close to 20 years – said, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.” (1)
Yet, during an interview with Chicago Sun-Times reporter Cathleen Falsani, when asked if he still attends Trinity, Obama replied, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.” (2)
So, if Obama was telling the truth when he said he was at Trinity “every week,” he was there when Wright preached at least some of his incendiary sermons. If he wasn’t there to hear Wright, then he lied when he said he attended “every week.”
Also, Obama appeared on the cover of The Trumpet, Trinity’s magazine, several times. Wright had his outrageous words that “have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit” (according to Obama’s belated denunciation), printed within the covers of these magazines, yet Obama claims to have had no knowledge of them until the beginning of his presidential campaign?
A sitting United States Senator most definitely has staff tracking EVERY mention in the media. And believe me, if you’re mentioned in a magazine, your staff is posing over the magazine, checking every jot and tittle.
Without a doubt, Obama was aware of Wright’s beliefs prior to starting his presidential campaign.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
(2) http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html
Michelle Jenkins wrote me some time in the past to try to fling mud at the good name of a local social-conservative pastor who wrote a column for the AFP for a few yeara and whose church was at the center of allegations against Michelle in a criminal case.
She is right in her comment above that I heard her out and then decided against siding with her against the pastor and his church. Since that point in time, she has made it a point to attack me personally on this website any time I make comments on local or national politics that she feels are out of line with her views.
I had decided not to share the story about her push to have us remove our columnist because I didn’t think it appropriate to air her dirty laundry in a public setting. She unfortunately has chosen to do so now, at least in part, without offering full details of her story, just the parts that she hopes will make our readers think ill of me, and so I bring the rest of the story up now only to defend myself against her malicious attack here.
It saddens me that someone would try to take advantage of me in this way – both in the first instance, to try to use her relationship with me to gain a measure of personal revenge against somebody with whom she was in a dispute, and then now, to reference the backstory to my rebuff of that inappropriate request in passing with only bare details so as to make me out to be a horrible person and then take the high and mighty road by saying that she is going to move on.
Best wishes, Michelle.
Wayne, good investigatory work on those two bits there. I chafed at your blanket statement that Obama tells lies, but it would be hard to dress these examples up and make them look pretty.
I tried to keep your on your toes, and now you’re keeping me on my toes. Kudos.
A note to readers: Bill’s comment above ended up in the spam filter for a while this afternoon because of a gltich in the spam-filter software.
I have the filter set to catch comments with more than one link in them to shield us from the stream of porn and financial junk e-mails that we would otherwise get here. I scan it daily, and we sometimes have upwards of 400 spam e-mails a day to delete.
If anybody posts in the future and doesn’t see their comment on the site for some reason, e-mail me and let me know. I can retrieve messages from the spam filter quickly and easily, but I might otherwise miss your message in my daily scans of the junk e-mail if I don’t know to look for it.
Oh, and for LD – thanks for having my back on this, man.
Here’s something uncomfortable to have to bring up. Our commenters Wayne and LD here in this thread are posting from the same IP address. And it’s not just here in this thread. LD posted from the same IP address in another ongoing thread this week.
Another check of past postings shows more interchangeability between LD and Wayne.
you are right Chris. I used to use wayne_rider and later added LD. To be completely honest I was very angry at the way you talked to me yesterday. I was very angry and in anger at you i mislead you and the other readers. Despite the fact that I thought you were truly a jerk and mean, I should not have done that. I opologize to you but moreso to the other ones that came to my defense. I think if you can get under my skin this bad then I need to stop reading and posing here. Once again my sincere opologies.
It’s big of you to admit it, LD. Sorry to have angered you. Honestly, you got under my collar a bit, too, and I apologize for letting myself get upset and probably showing that in my responses. You’re welcome to join us here anytime, under either name.
Well when the economy plumits because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the republican congress, then lets see we have no choice. The 700 billion dollar bailout plan is nothing short of socialism. We have become a socialist country, minus welfare reform. So Karl Marx was right. You cannot deny that. Freedom will always be limited in a society that tests the very people who work hard and get nothing in return from money hogging people who hide behind wall street.