Cyberherbalist's Blog

Although I am on Twitter, I only occasionally check out the feeds of those whom I follow.  I don’t follow very many, and Tweet only very rarely, mainly just when I post an entry here.  And whom do I follow?  Well, I won’t bore you with my complete follower list (you can find out if you want by checking my Twitter profile: @IWasAboutToSay).  But I do follow President Obama, and last week when I happened to check my Twitter feed, the Chief Tweeter had just belted out a few Tweets.  I thought they were quite instructive and worth commenting on here.

Here are the Tweets he emitted on 27 September, along with my comments to each of them.

27 Sept 2012 10:10am – POTUS: “We can decide that in the United States of America, no child should have her dream deferred because of an overcrowded classroom.”

Studies have shown that classroom size has no actual effect on student performance.  And whatever does he think that the Federal government can do about it?  We’ve had a Federal Department of Education since Jimmy Carter, and this has had no discernible effect on student performance, no matter what policies it pursued, nor which party was in power.

I am not sure if the Obama administration cares a fig or not for actual results, or if classroom size in itself is the ultimate goal, but as for me, I want our children to actually be able to read, comprehend what they read, and become thinking adults.  Not Obamabots.

27 Sept 2012 10:12am – “Help us keep tuition costs down for young people all across this country. They deserve opportunity just like I had opportunity.”

And just what are “we” supposed to do to accomplish this?  There isn’t a college in the United States that is run by the Federal government.  Unless Obama wants to abolish the States and run the whole shootin’ match from the Oval Office.  I’m sure he’d love to.

27 September 2012 10:20am – President Obama: “The typical family has seen their tax burden go down about $3,600 on the federal level because of our policies.”

And which policies are those, exactly?  Has he lowered federal taxes or something?  Oh, I guess he lowered the FICA tax, thus making the Social Security system’s looming bankruptcy even closer than it was before!  Not sure if that’s a good thing or not.  I’d judge that it isn’t.  Well, apart from that, this is a marvelous demonstration of how to lie using statistics.  The reason families are paying less in federal taxes isn’t because of any conscious policy the Obama administration has put into effect, it is because families are making less money because the economy is in the process of flatlining.

But on second thought, I guess Obama has a point after all, in a kind of backhanded way: the Obama administration’s policies have utterly failed to do anything to stem the tide of economic collapse, and thus the typical family is paying less in taxes as a result of earning less income than before.  If I were him, though, I wouldn’t want to take much credit for this.  It doesn’t seem … helpful.  To him, anyway.

27 September 2012 10:25am – “My opponent thinks it’s fair that someone who makes $20 million a year like him pays a lower rate than a cop or a teacher who makes $50K.”

It’s amazing how nefarious that sounds!  Notice he doesn’t say that the cop or teacher pays more taxes, just that they have a higher tax rate?  And notice the amount: $20 million.  Is it a coincidence that his opponent Mitt Romney is known to make about $20 million a year on his investments?  No, I don’t think so!

Actually, I don’t know if Romney has been known to say that paying 15% on investment income is “fair” versus the rate at which a cop or teacher’s pays the tax on their income, which will vary some depending upon deductions.  But let’s just say that Romney pays 15% on the whole $20 million, and the cop or teacher pays, say, 20% on the whole $50K.  My calculator, then, says they pay this much in taxes:

• Romney pays: $3,000,000 • Cop/Teacher pays: $10,000

Now, just who is it that is paying the operating expenses of the country?  Romney’s taxes buys a heck of lot more crap than the cops or the teachers.  And in fact, after deductions, the cop or the teacher pays more like $3,000 in income taxes.  Which is an effective rate of 6%.  So, who is paying through the nose then?

And what is this fairness that Obama is talking about?  Does socking Romney with a higher tax rate make any practical difference to the cop?  Presumably the cop or teacher’s salary is being paid out of city or state taxes of one sort or another.  Does it make them feel better somehow to know that Romney is forking out a higher rate to the federal government?

The fact of the matter is simply this: Romney’s 15% is paying the equivalent of 60 teachers’ salaries.  The teacher’s taxes are paying for the toilet seat on a military transport airplane.  What was this about fairness, again?

27 September 2012 10:35am – “We’ve got a new tower across the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and bin Laden is dead.”—President Obama

And this is relevant?  How?  Oh, that’s right: Obama wants to make sure we know that he actually had the cojones to give the Go order to whack Osama bin Laden.  Props to him for that.  But wouldn’t ANY president have given that order, considering 9/11?  And as for that tower across the New York skyline, of course it was late and over budget, and the federal government didn’t build it.  So is he trying to take credit for that?  Too?

27 September 2012 10:46am – President Obama on the GOP: “Their theory is if you can’t afford health insurance, hope you don’t get sick.”

And where is this theory to be found, exactly?  In the collected works of Mitt Romney?  I know what the Democrat theory is.  Make health insurance so expensive that the only way anyone can afford it is for the federal government to provide it.  This is possibly the reason why the Affordable Care Act lays a tax on everyone who can’t afford to buy health insurance, or refuses to do so.  Capital idea!

The deeper implication of this otherwise blatant attempt to knock over yet another Straw Man is the message that under the Obama philosophy the ultimate insurer is the federal government.  If you can’t afford it, well then, Obama will pay for it!  And why should anyone buy their own insurance if the feds will fess it up?  The Obama Plan is thus a sly and sneaky way to ultimately nationalize the entire healthcare industry.  It has to be a step-wise process, of course, because few people would swallow it all at once.

27 September 2012 10:50am – President Obama on the Romney-Ryan mindset: “If you can’t afford to go to college, borrow money from your parents.”

And this is different from borrowing money from the federal government?  In what way, exactly?  Oh, that’s right, your parents might not have any money to lend.  The feds, on the other hand, don’t either, but they’d be willing to print some or borrow some into existence!  Either way, your parents will pay, either directly through taxes, or indirectly through inflation and an out-of-control national debt.  And so will you.  And while your parents might be willing to forgive your debt to them, will the federal government be willing?  One guess on that, my friend.

And please don’t try to paper this over by saying that the federal government is only guaranteeing student loans.  Who pays if the student defaults?  Why, the feds do!  That’s the only reason the lenders are willing to risk making the loans in the first place.

27 September 2012 11:01am – “We believe America only works when we accept certain responsibilities for ourselves, and also for others.”—President Obama

And just who would disagree with this platitude?  Nobody.  So what is the point?  Oh, that’s right, Obama wants to sound wise.  As for me, on the other hand, I’d prefer he fixed the economy.

27 September 2012 11:10am – “If we rally around a new kind of economic patriotism, we will rebuild this economy together. We will rebuild the middle class together.”

Please, Mr. President, what is this “new kind of economic patriotism”?

The key word here is the indefinite article “a”.  As in: “a new kind of economic patriotism”. It’s indefinite because he doesn’t have a clue what kind of economic patriotism he is talking about, but it sounds really good, so he says it.  And what exactly is the old kind of economic patriotism?  Come to think of it, I am rather cloudy on what the term “economic patriotism” is supposed to mean.

Here’s some “economic patriotism” for you: accept the responsibility for your own upkeep, to the greatest degree you are able, and expect all others to accept the responsibility for their own upkeep as well.  Once the federal government can accept that kind of economic patriotism, then prosperity will flow as naturally from the economy as water flows from a artesian spring.  As for those who genuinely cannot generate enough economic activity to sustain their own upkeep?  The generosity of all those who can do so will more than sustain those who cannot.

I love Morgan Freeman as an actor.  There’s nobody quite like him, and I’ve liked pretty much every movie he’s acted in, largely because of him.  Of course he’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But how could he say things like this — and still remain credible?

OK, I was disappointed when I heard him refer to the Tea Party as racists.  And the reason for this?  Because the Tea Party supposedly wanted to see President Obama lose this November.  It sure is fun, isn’t it?  Calling people nasty names because they take principled political stands on issues — just because those principles happen to be opposed by a President who happens to be black?  I wonder if Republicans could get away with this?  Say, if Mitt Romney gets elected, could the Republicans get away with calling those people who voted for Obama racists?  Because Romney is white?  Nah.

But his latest pronouncement is simply amazing, as well as disappointing.  In an interview with NPR, Mr. Freeman said that Obama isn’t actually our first black President.  He’s our first “mixed-race President”.  And why?  Because Obama’s mother was white!  You could have knocked me over with a feather.  Don’t believe me?  Here, have a listen:

The reason I felt that this outrageous is that I know something about discrimination.  As white as I am, one of my great great grandmothers was American Indian.  Her children were all “Half-Breeds” and treated even more disrespectfully by the whites than their full-blood cousins.  Mixed race, indeed!  So Obama is a “half-breed”?  That is what Mr. Freeman just said.  Not in so many words, but can you say “code words”?

Another situation came to my mind after hearing Mr. Freeman’s words.  Apartheid.  If you don’t know what that means, count yourself fortunate, but read about it HERE.

Back in the mid-60’s my family lived for a time in Toronto, Canada due to my father’s employment.  In my high school I had a friend and fraternity brother named Dion.  He was from South Africa.  But he was not white, neither was black.  In South African terms, by legal definition, Dion and his family were all “colored”.  Under Apartheid Dion had certain privileges not enjoyed by his black cousins, and had certain privileges enjoyed by whites withheld.  They emigrated from South Africa because of Apartheid, because they were “mixed-race” or “half-breeds”.  They were second-class citizens in the land of their birth.

This is what I was astonished to hear, that Morgan Freeman could call Barack Obama a “half-breed” or a “mulatto“, simply by using another euphemism, “mixed-race”, and get away with it.

But to cut to the chase, to Morgan Freeman at least, Barack Obama isn’t black enough.

Simply astounding.