Part III of our Why the poor should vote Republican series
For the past 30 years Democratic Party presidents, congressmen and candidates have opposed expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production, as well as permits for new oil refineries and nuclear power plants. Democrats have based their policy arguments on safety (despite the absence of any significant nuclear power accidents in the U.S.) and environmental concerns; as well as the promise of “clean” solar and wind energy.
When Americans noticed that the polluted air and water of the 1970s were cleaned up while energy use expanded exponentially in the 1980s and 1990s, they argued that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were dangerously warming the globe. When the combination of cold 2000 naughts’ winters coincided with scientific data affirming global cooling, they semantically shifted to fears of amorphous “climate change.” When the discovery of emails from adherents of the latter indicating a conspiratorial fraud followed closely upon the Summer of 2008’s increase in gasoline prices to $4/gallon, they lost all credibility aimed at the CO2 humans exhale, i.e. plant food.
Republicans say “x”; the media reports they meant “y”; and the best way to be sued for defamation is to accurately quote a Democrat
President Barack Obama has faced the nation the past three years declaring his debt-exploding policies to be Biblically-based, in the national interest and necessary to remedy the economic crisis he inherited from his GOP predecessor. When addressing the persistence of continuing economic ills in the fourth year of his presidency he asserts that Republicans impede solutions to the nations ills because they put party politics above what’s best for the country or that he didn’t realize just how bad the crisis was. Finally, when addressing follow up questions from the media reminding him of his original contradictory claims and suggesting that he is attributing nefarious non-Christian motives to Republicans in Congress, he…oh, wait a minute, we don’t actually remember hearing such follow ups when Obama meets the press.
The free exercise of religion was fundamental to the founding of America, but so is the right to freely bargain with health care and insurance providers
After President Barack Obama inevitably drops the recently announced mandate that even church-affiliated employers provide health insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and “Plan B” morning after abortion pills (aka RU-486), will we look back at this exercise as a ruse to make ObamaCare seem more palatable to voters this fall?
After all, the Messiah will be seen as having heard the public outcry including threats of civil disobedience, and graciously agreed to respect the consciences of Roman Catholics? In fact, the subject mandate applies to all religious group employers which include numerous Southern Baptist hospitals and other Protestant and Evangelical organizations, but I digress.
Yes, America’s founding by pilgrims and Puritans, not to mention the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, properly focuses this mandate to fund abortion coverage via insurance premiums on the free exercise of religion, but of course, when Democrats aka Dem-o-bats (pictured, that suck the blood out of health care) rule, our tax dollars regularly fund abortion and yet we don’t see threats of civil disobedience to withhold taxes, do we? Moreover, if theObamaCare mandate is actually put into effect in August 2013 (after the election of course) the only recourse people of conscience would have would be to refuse to pay the ObamaCare fine for refusing to comply.
Caring for the poor is always defined by support for the latest Democratic Party proposal
During my teen and young adult Democratic Party activism years in the 70s and 80s, the number one scare tactic used by the party to scare widows and orphans, i.e. the poor, was their claim that if Republicans controlled the government, they would “take away your checks”. Ronald Reagan, famously asserted his support for a safety net for the “truly needy” and despite several periods of exclusive GOP control of the executive and legislative branches over the last 30 years, the safety net remains intact.
And yet, the Democratic Party mantra against Republicans as having a lack of concern for the poor has continued unabated with the goalposts continually being moved to re-define caring as support for the latest liberal Democrat proposal, whether it be Stimulus, ObamaCare or mortgage bailout bills.
Enter Mitt Romney:
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
Translation: We agree with the Democratic Party. Our concern for the very poor has been satisfied by the welfare state they have constructed and if we must spend more money to expand that safety net to show we care about the poor, we will.
Mitt makes many mistakes with this statement and one of the mistakes is in thinking that Republicans can ever satisfy the Democrats on the issue of caring for the poor. We can’t. Why? Because their concern is in buying the votes of the poor by keeping them dependent on government and creating more poor people to be dependent on them.