In 2006, Canada’s National Debt was 50% of their GDP. In 2006, America’s National Debt was 50% of their GDP. Since the elections in Canada of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Government the Canadian National Debt stands at less than 30% of the Canadian GDP. Since the midterms of 2006 [when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took power in Congress] in America the National debt now stands at over 100% of the American GDP.
1) Only in America could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes –
be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any
income taxes at all.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still
discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a
black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal work force is black
while only 12% of the population is black
3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for
our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and
Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to
be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah
and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed
by the backlash.
5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become
American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of
thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who
sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and
sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a
check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether
oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when
the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is
less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the
people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars
more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and
complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a
$35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no
experience … and a complete failure at his job … be reelected.
THIS is the degree the elite media will go to spin for this president.
Remember when they said that the Bush recovery was a jobless recovery and his unemployment rate was 1% better than Clinton’s, which the press reported as “a booming economy”?
This is exactly the kind of press that Eastern Europeans used to make jokes about.
WASHINGTON – Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits ticked up slightly last week, the latest sign of stability in the job market.
The Labor Department said Thursday that applications rose 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 371,000, the most in five weeks. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, increased 6,750 to 365,750, after falling to a four-year low the previous week.
John Bolton having a serious discussion on the John Batchelor Show.
“Postponing the inevitable confrontation only makes the confrontation more difficult. You can keep kicking the can down the road, but you are not making the si8tuation better”
In the interest of full disclosure Tucker is a friend, but like him or not, this editor is very proud of Tucker’s defense of some GENUINE tough journalism. Most beltway reporters toss their journalistic ethics and standards out the window to get a job, Tucker isn’t having it.
This is a big problem at our college campuses. It is a problem I have had to deal with as an activist against racism on campus when I went to Indiana University. I have even had to tell a couple of anti-Semetic professors to tone down the bias or face a very public PR brawl with me.
Feb 25, 2013 – Allen West interviews investigative journalist and Israeli activist Lee Kaplan about anti-Semitism at American universities. Why is this happening? What can be done about it? And is the political left uniting with the Islamists on campus? Find out in this interesting conversation.
This comes as no surprise to readers of Political Arena. We have been cataloging just a residue of this in our Academic Misconduct and School Indoctrination categories.
Local textbooks from South Bend public schools are filled with errors as well, such as that the Founders were secularists, actually 53 of them were leaders in their church, and a favorite of mine is the book my daughter brought home that said that the S&KL crisis that happened in the 1970’s was Ronald Reagan’s fault (he wasn’t elected until 1980). I also run an experiment; whenever a customer hands me a $50 dollar bill I ask him what war Grant served as a General in. So far not one person with the $50 even knew he served as a General Officer (although one old man in earshot did know).
Senator Lindsey Graham is a strange fellow. At times he is capable of inspiring moments of clarity where he really does “get it” and at other times he is not on Planet Earth. This is one of the better moments. This is also an example of why Eric Holder is the most radical and incompetent Attorney General in the nation’s history.
Tonight I heard a leftist anti-self defense activist say that military style arms have no place in the hands of civilians, and in the very next sentence say that banning military style arms is totally consistent with the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision as authored by Justice Scalia. What a big fat lie.
Here is the video mentioned, and in it the “gun control” advocate uses almost every misleading rhetorical trick in the book:
Heller says that states can limit weapons that are unusual and menacing, but military style small arms are mentioned as protected several times in Heller:
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia… . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms… . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152–153 (1868) (hereinafter Pomeroy).
MORE:
“Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt, a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence.” B. Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880) (hereinafter Abbott). – end quote
The above are merely two of plenty more references to be found in Heller. In Heller Justice Scalia references the earlier Miller Supreme Court Decision where the court argued that since weapons with a military purpose are protected by the Second Amendment the state may regulate certain guns that serve no military purpose. Justice Scalia uses this example to specifically refute a claim in Justice Stevens’ dissent:
It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
In fact, Justice Scalia gives the example of the M-16/AR-15 as the quintessential example of a weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Read Justice Scalia carefully below:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The M-16 (AR-15) is the second most common rifle in use today, second only to the Kalashnikov (AK and SKS style rifles). By every legal definition throughout history, these rifles are not considered unusually dangerous and menacing, rather they are common.
UPDATE: Already I have received a few comments essentially stating the following:
The guy’s argument is doubly self-defeating. The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is not used by any military. What MAKES it an AR-15 are precisely the things that make it non-military. The argument is self-defeating.
Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton Responds:
Only if you have accepted the false premises of the left.
The bolt action ’03 Springfield held five rounds and was the standard infantry rifle for the United States for decades. The musket was the standard military weapon for decades, hundreds of thousands have carried a .30 M1 Carbine in battle which is a semi-auto rifle only. The Colt Single Action Army Revolver was carried by our troops in some cases until after WWI. Are all revolvers now only military weapons that can be banned?
Of course the difference between the M-16 and the AR-15 is that one is selective fire and one is not. While it is an important difference to point out, with respect, it is not Justice Scalia or us that are making a self defeating argument, it is you who are accepting a self defeating premise of the far left, eg – that military style small arms are not protected, which they are, in fact, in Heller, Justice Scalia openly questions if the 1934 NFA is constitutional.
Heller is clear that as long as the military small arm is commonly in use and not highly unusual, weapons similar to it are protected.
Democrats Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar got women’s attention when he essentially told them that they are too stupid to know when they are being raped and who is raping them, which is why women cannot be trusted with guns. He is far from the first Democrat to make such comments:
It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop — pop a round at somebody?
Amazing….
Rape victim Amanda Collins was interviewed on the Cam Edwards show. Collins responds to the Democrats’ preposterous assertions and tells how she was treated by CNN, Piers Morgan, and NBC.
Below is the Democrat idiot from Colorado who says that you are too stupid to know who is raping you:
This video is from a few months ago, but it is revealing in demonstration the way the leftist elite media tries to frame the debate falsely, quite frankly, with assumptions that are just lies.
Notice how David Gregory never wants to talk about truly important topics or be critical of President Obama in any way.
What you see here is Senator Leahy trying to get a soundbite out of Wayne LaPierre. Senator Leahy is trying to get an answer out of the NRA that he can spin into using to falsely claim that the NRA opposes ALL back ground checks on gun buyers who do not already have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The simple truth is that it is the NRA who championed the National Instant Check System (NICS) to begin with. Under the law it is illegal to attempt to buy a gun of you are a convicted felon and it is the ACLU and other groups among the left that have opposed mandatory reporting to NICS for the mentally ill.
The Obama Administration has made a conscious decision not to prosecute felons who attempt to buy guns. I will let you decide why you think that is, but the sudden and staggering drop in prosecutions cannot be an accident.
The NRA opposes mandatory checks for collectors who occasionally trade or sell a single firearm at a gun show, why? Because the left has a VERY long history on using technicalities in such laws or simple mistakes in paperwork to prosecute honest gun owners and collectors, which is exactly what the new gun law in New York in designed to do. The simple truth is that ideologues in the Democratic Party have long been willing to criminalize political differences and use their prosecutoreal zeal to go after gun owners who the left views as political enemies.
To see more on the “Gunshow Loophole Myth” click HERE.
Dr. Sowell is our greatest living philosopher and he is black, which means of course, that if you disagree with him it automatically makes you a racist.
Many years ago, as a young man, I read a very interesting book about the rise of the Communists to power in China. In the last chapter, the author tried to explain why and how this had happened.
Among the factors he cited were the country’s educators. That struck me as odd, and not very plausible, at the time. But the passing years have made that seem less and less odd, and more and more plausible. Today, I see our own educators playing a similar role in creating a mindset that undermines American society.
Thomas Sowell
Schools were once thought of as places where a society’s knowledge and experience were passed on to the younger generation. But, about a hundred years ago, Professor John Dewey of Columbia University came up with a very different conception of education — one that has spread through American schools of education, and even influenced education in countries overseas.
John Dewey saw the role of the teacher, not as a transmitter of a society’s culture to the young, but as an agent of change — someone strategically placed, with an opportunity to condition students to want a different kind of society.
A century later, we are seeing schools across America indoctrinating students to believe in all sorts of politically correct notions. The history that is taught in too many of our schools is a history that emphasizes everything that has gone bad, or can be made to look bad, in America — and that gives little, if any, attention to the great achievements of this country.
If you think that is an exaggeration, get a copy of “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn and read it. As someone who used to read translations of official Communist newspapers in the days of the Soviet Union, I know that those papers’ attempts to degrade the United States did not sink quite as low as Howard Zinn’s book.
That book has sold millions of copies, poisoning the minds of millions of students in schools and colleges against their own country. But this book is one of many things that enable teachers to think of themselves as “agents of change,” without having the slightest accountability for whether that change turns out to be for the better or for the worse — or, indeed, utterly catastrophic.
This misuse of schools to undermine one’s own society is not something confined to the United States or even to our own time. It is common in Western countries for educators, the media and the intelligentsia in general, to single out Western civilization for special condemnation for sins that have been common to the human race, in all parts of the world, for thousands of years.
Meanwhile, all sorts of fictitious virtues are attributed to non-Western societies, and their worst crimes are often passed over in silence, or at least shrugged off by saying some such thing as “Who are we to judge?”
There is a reason why the Department of Homeland Security refers to these guns as “Personal Defense Weapons” because that is what they are best used for.
It seems that the NRA is winning the PR battle…again.
The Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchased 14 AR-15 assault weapons to protect students in response to recent shootings across the country, but some school leaders and citizens think it’s a step in the wrong direction.
FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.
Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”
In data released Thursday afternoon, the Federal Reserve revealed that its holdings of U.S. government debt had increased to an all-time record of $1,696,691,000,000 as of the close of business on Wednesday.
The Fed’s holdings of U.S. government debt have increased by 257 percent since President Barack Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, and the Fed is currently the single largest holder of U.S. government debt.
As of the end of November, according to the U.S. Treasury, entities in Mainland China owned about $1,170,100,000,000 in U.S. government debt, making China the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.
When Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the Fed owned $475.322 billion in U.S. government debt. As of the close of business on Wednesday, Jan. 23, the Fed owned $1.696691 trillion in U.S. government debt, up $1.221369 trillion during Obama’s first term.
John Nolte at Big Government speaks truth at the New York Times’ expense. The NYT, along with much of the elite media, has become so much of a joke, that they cannot see why their circulation shrinks and shrinks while the Wall Street Journal, talk radio and Fox News are cleaning up, people no longer trust the elite media because they are so flamboyantly dishonest.
One of the first stories I came across this morning was the news that the New York Times is once again in financial turmoil. By 5PM today, thirty senior staffers must agree to voluntarily resign. If not, terminations will ensue. This is the fourth time this has happened to the Times in just five years.
Yeah, that is a shame.
It’s no coincidence, either, that this day of downsizing occurs just a few days after a NYT editor, Andrew Rosenthal, not only slobbered all over Obama like a teenage groupie, but publicly accused the GOP of racism for daring to try to stop Lightbringer’s socialist agenda:
Mr. Obama took over a country gravely damaged by his predecessor. (In fact I was convinced in 2008 that whoever succeeded President George W. Bush could only last one term). He got a raw deal, and then he helped prevent the Great Recession from turning into the Second Great Depression. Wall Street doesn’t like Mr. Obama, but corporate profits have soared in the last four years. He ended the war in Iraq, and he’s on his way to getting us out of Afghanistan. He passed health care reform. Along the way, he faced a Republican Party that was not only implacable in its opposition to his agenda but also hostile toward him personally (no doubt in part because of his race.).
If the NYT wants to know why it’s in the middle of its fourth personnel massacre in only five years, this is why.
The paper is completely off the rails, unable to engage in any kind of intellectually honest discussion, and so determined to see Obama have his way that its editors are reduced to slander and ad hominem.
The NYT has always been biased, but it’s now an increasingly cheap and alienating publication unable to distinguish itself from the fever swamps of the Daily Kos and Salon. And since those outlets are available online for free, why squander money few can afford during Obama’s “recovery” for the Times?
The Obama Administration has been using the EPA and the permitting process to make easy permitting for friends and campaign donors, but a GOP state like Texas gets the hand. This is the type of bnana republic abuse of power that is so typical with this administration. Welcome to Chicago.
Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced yesterday that it was cancelling the project.
“Chase Power … has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,” Chase CEO Dave Freysinger told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
Freysinger made it very clear who was responsible for the projects death. “The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said.
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.
The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. “[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.”
The bill’s measures include stopping “the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic,” according to the Huffington Post.
The left-leaning website adds: “Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire.”
Homeland Security buys 7,000 “Assault Rifles” and calls them “Personal Defense Weapons”…
But they told us that such firearms have no self defense purpose…
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”
Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.
Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.
Props to progressive liberal Prof. Michael Shermer, who got (figuratively) his butt kicked in debates with Dinesh D’Souza and well knew it. Shermer was well humored about it and was a real good sport. Most liberals would have simply snapped.
Even though I have made it my specialty to study liars and the propaganda that is used to market evil to those who are not vigilant, it amazes me when I watch President Obama because, unlike most politicians who lie to get themselves out of trouble or do it off the cuff in the heat of the moment, this new crew of Saul Alinsky inspired Democrats use lies and the most advanced propaganda and deception techniques as a tool for calculated aggression. This writer has no doubt that Obama’s staff has “think tank” sessions where they come up with such lies, distortions, and dishonest associations and even take the time to focus group the lies so as to tweak them for believability.
What I found most offensive was when he perverted the message of America’s Founders as an affirmation of Marxist collectivist propaganda:
… fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people [government must do it]
Individualism of course does not mean always acting alone. Did George Washington with the revolution by himself? Can people not cooperate to make things as complex as a pencil do so without government controlling it all? By using false definitions and associative propaganda techniques this line is designed to undermine and twist the idea of rugged individualism and the idea that in our form of government is the citizen that is the sovereign, not the state.
What we saw in Obama’s speech are the kinds of self serving twists, distortions, and straw-man arguments that tyrants have used for centuries. What makes this different is that , it is being used by an American president, and the quality of such lies is the best I have ever seen since Goebbels.
I was in the process of going through the entire speech so I could deconstruct the lies, but Mytheos Holt at The Blaze has done a nice job of doing this that.
Unfortunately, another characteristic was also in evidence in Obama’s speech: namely, his tendency to argue against positions that nobody holds (and by extension, to mischaracterize his opponents’ views so as to make them easier to argue against). In logic, this unfortunate tendency is referred to as a “straw man fallacy” and it was well-worn in President Obama’s speech today – so well-worn that at times, he seemed to cough up a new straw man fallacy with every sentence. How many of these arguments in bad faith did the President use? Read on as we list each one and explain their fallacious nature.
Straw Man #1:
“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”
The President’s line about muskets and militias is a rhetorical flourish more than an argument, but the first part of this line is an obvious straw man. No one in the current political climate is arguing for a complete dissolution of government power such that only the American people as a collective would be responsible for defending the country or performing any other task. Rather, the question is how much responsibility should be left to private citizens. Saying “private citizens cannot handle all responsibilities” is not the same as saying “private citizens cannot handle any responsibility at all.”
Straw Man #2:
“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”
Like the first straw man, this one argues against something which is obviously false, and which no one believes. A single, individual person obviously cannot do all of this alone, but again, that does not imply that if someone cannot do something alone, the government must step in and do it for them. For instance, an architect cannot build a skyscraper alone. He needs laborers, engineers, and other people. But saying he can’t do this alone is not the same thing as saying that private citizens cannot cooperatively agree to do this without help from the government.
Straw Man #3:
“We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.”
No one is proposing completely giving up caring for older generations, nor is anyone proposing completely ignoring young people’s needs. The question is how much government can afford to spend on each. More to the point, no one on either side is proposing complete abolition of programs that help the elderly or the disabled.
Straw Man #4:
“We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
This particular straw man presumably is meant to apply to income inequality. At least, that’s the only public policy issue that this author can see it relating to. However, as with the others, it is a misreading of people who argue against greater income equality. For one thing, freedom and happiness are not necessarily the same as money, and luck is not the only thing that makes a person wealthy. Moreover, people who argue that income inequality is not necessarily a problem are not defending the idea that only a few can be wealthy, which is a question of income mobility, not equality.
Straw Man #5:
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”
This straw man, which deals with global warming, is actually two fallacies in one. It is a straw man because no one believes they can avoid the impact of natural disasters completely, and it also begs the question by assuming that solving global warming will solve the problem of fires, drought and storms, while simultaneously trying to prove that by solving global warming, natural disasters will be lessened.
Straw Man #6:
“We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”
The President’s critics on national security do not believe in perpetual war. They may believe in seeing some wars through to their conclusion, or starting other wars out of necessity, but none of them believes in perpetual war for its own sake.
Straw Man #7:
“For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.”
People arguing against bills such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which claim to be devoted to ensuring equal pay for women, often do so because they are concerned that these laws give trial lawyers too much of an excuse to sue, not because they believe women should be underpaid.
Straw Man #8:
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Again, there are no mainstream political figures who believe that gays should be unequal before the law. In fact, gays enjoy all the same constitutional protections as straight people. The question of whether the right to marriage is one of those constitutional protections, however, is an unresolved question, though the Supreme Court may resolve it later this year. This straw man also assumes that the only function of marriage is to facilitate love. That is certainly one view, but it is not one that all critics of gay marriage subscribe to, and thus assuming that they oppose gay marriage out of opposition to love is a straw man.
Straw Man #9:
“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.”
Shutting off immigration completely is not a policy proposal being offered. What is being argued about is the question of what to do with people who immigrated to the US in contradiction to its laws.
Straw Man #10:
“Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness.”
This is obviously true, but is also a straw man because no one believes that following a blueprint for governance requires the people following that blueprint to make all the same lifestyle choices. This is not even an argument that constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court advance. The President is arguing against a position that is not held by his critics.
So let me get this straight. When a police officer pulls over a car with possible illegal aliens in it he cannot ask certain questions because liberals say it’s racism. But liberals want gun owners to be registered, fingerprinted and data-based up and down, as well as having our names and addresses printed in the paper.
Who is preferred and who is treated as the non-citizen?
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 