Obama Spokeswoman Says Obama Has Been “Unequivocal” on “$250,000”, Then Lowers Threshold to $45,000 – $50,000

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has been relocated. For updates to this post and to view more recent postings, click here.

$120,000 must be the new $150,000, no, it’s the new $200,000, no, the new $250,000. Huh??

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in a radio interview on Denver, Colorado radio station 850 KOA today stated that people with incomes under $120,000 would receive tax cuts:

After months of stating that Obama would give tax cuts to “all working families” that made less than $250,000, that number has changed four, perhaps five times this week.

Those numbers for people who will have tax bulls-eyes tacked to their foreheads just keeps changing. In the whole “spreading” or redistributing the wealth scheme, those who will have their wealth “spread around” seem to be making less and less from one day to the next.

On Wednesday, “Oh, That’s Just Joe Being Joe” Joe Biden said the Obama-Biden tax plan would lower taxes for everyone making less than $150,000:

Perhaps in a “slow economy” or “financial crisis”, we just need to redefine the definition of “rich”. Wednesday, apparently, rich was $150,000, during Obama’s thirty minute indoctromercial, it was $200,000.

Perplexed by the four different numbers now floating, Fox News Stuart Varney, filling in on Neil Cavuto’s Your World, invited an Obama spokeswoman on to clear things up.

**Warning – Duct Tape Alert**

Please wrap your head securely in Duct tape prior to viewing as your head is likely to explode about 90 seconds in:

This link will take you to the Fox News site where you can view the video.

Miss Law seems to lower the threshold now to $45,000 – $50,000 if I get anythinng that makes any sense out of what she said.

If Mr. Obama, his running mate, a former Ambassador to the U.N. and sitting governor, or his “spokeswoman” can’t walk a straight line, let us do so here. Let’s examine some of the ways in which Miss Law tried to tap dance around directly clarifying which particular number is the one we are to believe:

  1. $150,000 and $120,000 were amounts used because they fall inside $250,000, and so does $200,000
  2. It’s not Mr. Obama who stated anything but $250,000, it was Joe Biden, and Governor Richardson
  3. Since it wasn’t Mr. Obama himself, we’d have to ask Joe Biden and Gov. Richardson what they meant
  4. Gov. Richardson and Sen. Biden were just saying those particular amounts because of the people they were talking to probably don’t make more than those amounts of money
  5. Mr. Obama did say $250,000 and then $200,000, but that’s not equivocating
  6. The discrepancies in amounts just reflect the struggle to define what “middle-class” is
  7. Middle-class is really $45,000 – $50,000

Miss Law really cleared things up, didn’t she? Let’s see if we understand her correctly, taking these explanations, one at a time and correcting the circular logic:

  1. It’s not a question of what falls inside the amount in question, and that’s not the context or language that was used by any of the speakers. It’s a question of where the threshold lies.
  2. First, it was Mr. Obama who was among those confusing the issue. But also, if a candidate or campaign sends out someone to speak on their behalf, they are obligated to have their facts straight. If they don’t have those facts straight, don’t send them out. If they say something that represents the candidate’s point of view, we will take the person at face value. Otherwise, the candidate himself should call a press conference and clear things up. Besides, since Miss Law was speaking on the campaigns behalf, hence the word, “spokeswoman”, are we not to believe anything she says either.
  3. We don’t need to ask Biden or Richardson anything. They already spoke. Were they rogues out there without campaign permission? Can we have Miss Law’s cell phone number so we can call and ask her what she meant?
  4. So the campaign is admitting that they say things to different people in different places?
  5. Huh?? Then what the heck is it?
  6. The discussion is not regarding the “struggle to define middle-class”, it’s an effort to nail down a dollar amount at which certain incomes will be taxed higher and others given cuts. Apparently we are being clearly told that until the “struggle” is resolved, we’re not going to be clear on that murky middle-class definition. Hence, the threshold for “rich” is TBD. In other words, we won’t really know what the amount is until after Sen. Obama is elected.
  7. Now we’re getting down to it. That $45,000 figure is suspiciously like the $41,600 figure we’d heard about earlier in the campaign: Sen. Obama had at one point in the U.S. Senate voted to raise taxes on  people with incomes above that amount.

Let us examine the definition of the word “equivocate”, courtesy of Merriam-Webster’s:

equiv·o·cate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Seems like the whole loopy discussion is the definition of “equivocate”.

Finally, let’s move totally into the land of common sense and sound reasoning. Is there any real doubt about what’s going on here? We’re being bombarded with so many amounts at this stage, so later, if elected President Obama can stake a claim on whichever amount is most convenient.



Advertisements

Obama to Kids: “Take an adult to the Polls…Tell Them to Vote for You, By Voting for Sen. Obama”

The Obama-Biden Campaign Website is a Virtual Treasure Trove of Interesting Information, if You Don’t Mind Getting Creeped Out…

Nazi Youth, Anyone?Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they are now officially living in the twilight zone? Leaving aside for a moment the rapid socialization of most of our economic system, etc., etc., does anyone else but me feel like they are being barraged with so much weirdness at once that it’s impossible to absorb? I’m talking about things such as my daughter (a braver troller than I) discovered on the “Obama for America” site:

10 Ways Kids for Obama can get involved:

  • Create a Kids for Obama Group on My.Barackobama.com. For example, Chicago Kids for Obama or DC Kids for Obama and throw a party!
  • Write a letter or editorial to your local news paper, expressing “Why Barack Obama should become the next US President”.
  • Find a Pen Pal – it could be in your school, city, state, or another state. Write and discuss different ways you can get involved.
  • Draw a picture of Senator Barack Obama or “an expression of Democracy”. For example, the Senator sitting in the White House or working on Capitol. Hill. You can send your drawing to the Obama for America Campaign Headquarters in Chicago and it will be posted for the Senator to see.
  • Implement T-Shirt Thursday. Get friends to wear an official Obama for America T-Shirt to school.
  • Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama.
  • Post an official Obama for America Campaign sticker/logo on your school bag.
  • Wear an Obama for America Campaign button and/or clothing.
  • Host a Senator Barack Obama House Party or sleep-over.
  • Contribute to the Kids for Obama Blog .

I think Johan Goldberg, author of Liberal Facism, does a better of job explaining how problematic this creepy appeal to children is:

Since Plato’s Republic, politicians, intellectuals, and priests have
been fascinated with the idea of “capturing” children for social-
engineering purposes. This is why Robespierre advocated that chil-
dren be raised by the state. Hitler—who understood as well as any
the importance of winning the hearts and minds of youth—once re-
marked, “When an opponent says ‘I will not come over to your side,’
I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short
time they will know nothing but this new community.’” Woodrow
Wilson candidly observed that the primary mission of the educator
was to make children as unlike their parents as possible. Charlotte
Perkins Gilman stated it more starkly. “There is no more brilliant
hope on earth to-day,” the feminist icon proclaimed, “than this new
thought about the child…the recognition of ‘the child,’ children as
a class, children as citizens with rights to be guaranteed only by the
state; instead of our previous attitude toward them of absolute per-
sonal [that is, parental] ownership—the unchecked tyranny…of
the private home.”

Mr. Goldberg’s book is nearly at the top of my list must-read history books. In addition to his regular columns posted twice weekly at National Review Online, he regularly posts on the site’s blog “The Corner”, and on the site’s blog devoted exclusively to the book, entitled, appropriately, LIberal Fascism.