Monday, August 27, 2012

Obama: Romney Has Extreme Views

By Douglas V. Gibbs

According to an interview with Obama reported by the Associated Press, the President believes that Mitt Romney, the GOP's apparent nomination for the 2012 Presidential Election, has extreme views.

Let's take that apart, shall we?

Remember, the liberal left democrats believe they are mainstream, so first of all in their eyes any position outside their own is going to be considered extremely to the right. Second of all, remember that liberal democrats are really good at projecting, and lying, so usually you can believe what comes out of their mouths about as much as you can believe what you read in tabloid magazines.

The most liberal of the liberal actually believe Obama is too moderate, while the conservatives and TEA Party folk are not real hip about Romney, seeing him as too moderate, and are only willing to vote for him because he picked a fantastic economic conservative in Paul Ryan.

The AP article begins with indicating that President Obama says "Mitt Romney has locked himself into 'extreme positions' on economic and social issues and would surely impose them if elected."

So that means Obama does not believe his economic and social positions are extreme. He apparently thinks that the federal takeover of two private automobile corporations, and eyeing taking over the rest of the private sector, is not extreme. Obama must believe, as we have seen in past from him, that partial birth abortion is not extreme. Obama must also think that the radical regulations against the private banking industry through Dodd-Frank is not extreme, either. The unsustainable spending by the White House has been at record levels, and is measured in the double-digit trillions of dollars. Oh, and Obama's other extreme, radical actions?

Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, which gives the federal government unchecked powers in regards to apprehending citizens. The language claims the suspects must be "terrorists", but the definition is ambivalent. With a little government manipulation, anyone can be labeled a domestic terrorist, including anyone daring to speak out against the federal government. The law gives the U.S. Military, under orders of the federal government, the allowance to have free reign to assassinate any American for any reason they determine to be unacceptable.

Obama was willing to target and kill an American Citizen overseas, and Awlaki was just one of many on Obama's personal kill list.

Obama began an covert drone war in Yemen, killing at will, as well as in Pakistan, and in Somalia.

Obama sold $30 billion worth of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

Obama defended and supports the TSA pat-downs at airports.

And Obama considers Romney extreme?

Obama told the Associated Press in the recent interview that Romney "lacks serious ideas, refuses to 'own up' to the responsibilities of what it takes to be president, and deals in factually dishonest arguments that could soon haunt him in face-to-face debates."

Obama's ideas have failed, and Romney's come from years of success in the business sector. So, my first response to Obama's claim that Romney lacks serious ideas is that we have to consider where that statement came from. Obama was a community organizer, an agitator, and a follower. He has never run a business, a city, or a State. He had no executive experience prior to the White House, and he has failed in an epic manner at the federal level. Yet, he claims that he somehow knows better than Romney on such matters?

The "refuses to own up to the responsibilities of what it takes to be president" comment by Obama is laughable. You see, Obama believes the executive is supposed to be all-powerful, which is why he has continuously circumvented Congress with executive orders and unconstitutional legislative actions by his regulatory agencies and czars.  Romney believes that the legislative branch alone holds the power to legislate, and that Constitutional belief to Obama is an inability to understand what it takes to be President.

Obama's claim that Romney deals in factually dishonest arguments that will haunt him in the upcoming debates was pretty funny, too. The "dishonest" arguments were actually factual, while Obama's allies made all kinds of false claims, from "Romney killed my wife," to "Romney has not paid taxes in ten years." Specifically, Obama was zeroing in on the "work for welfare" issue, where Obama recently removed the work requirement unilaterally from welfare. Not only did he in fact do it, he did so unconstitutionally without any consideration for the legislative process.

Also, we have to remember, liberal democrats tend to project. In other words, most of Obama's accusations are things he himself are guilty of.

In the interview Obama also says he plans to make compromises with the republicans in his second term, which is something he touted in the 2008 campaign, and we have seen how much of a lie that was over the last three and a half years. Then he called Congress, "one of the least productive Congresses in American history."

He believes this Congress is unproductive because they refuse to be a rubber stamp for him. The debate has been strong, and few pieces of legislation has survived the strong disagreements. . .

That means that Congress is working perfectly. The debates in the Constitutional Convention were even more fierce. The Founding Fathers wanted Congress to debate heavily, and for it to be difficult for legislation to pass, for if Congress was willing to act in collusion with an executive that wanted to fundamentally change America, it would be disastrous.

Perhaps Obama is upset because Romney is exposing him for the fraud that he is. While in the world of private equity Romney's success is undeniable, Obama has been the epitome of failure when it comes to the problem of joblessness and the economic upheaval of the nation.

The voters have realized that the election is about the difference between capitalism and socialism. Obama wishes to distract the voters from that.

Obama's primary attack is about Romney being rich. He has been using a proletariat versus the bourgeois tactic because he thinks Americans hate success in the private sector like he does. In reality, Americans appreciate the rich. It reminds us of the country we live in, where we can reach for the stars, and pursue happiness. Besides, it is the producers of society that have made this nation great. It is people like Romney that makes our economy function, grow, and prosper.

In the Associated Press article Obama also referred to abortion, which is a losing issue for the democrats. Most Americans are against the slaughter of the unborn. But, the thing is, the issue isn't even a federal issue, it is a State issue (as is marriage), so I really wish the republicans would indicate that. One of the reasons I respected Giuliani was, despite his pro-abortion stance, he understood it is a State issue, and called for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, not because he disagreed with the ruling, but because he recognized it was unconstitutional for the federal courts to overturn a State law on abortion.

The Romney Team, in response to Obama's attacks, simply stated that voters know they aren't better off than they were four years ago.

The real doozy was when Obama claimed it is he, and his policies, that have historically helped the middle class. Entitlements do not help the middle class, it handcuffs them. The middle class is helped when the producers produce. Their businesses grow, products move, jobs are created, and wealth is created. It also encourages members of the middle class to strike out on their own, to become entrepreneurs, and grow the pie even more.

As for Obama, a Romney spokesman said it well when explaining how Obama has piled up national debt and presided over high unemployment. "Too many middle-class families are going to sleep each night worried," he said. "This may be the best President Obama can do, but it's not the best America can do."

When Obama loses the election, however, he has already shifted the blame. As far as he is concerned, a loss would be the fault of his supporters for not giving him enough cash.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary








at

No comments:

Post a Comment