OMG…Barack Obama’s Not Wearing a Lapel Flag Pin

When a candidate’s struggling to bring their message to the public in a MSM (mainstream media) that’s controlled by the inevitable, preordained winner of the Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton and her support monger Rupert Murdoch, what makes big news? On the same week Barack Obama tries to state his views on Iraq, the foreign policy mistake that Hillary never should have voted for, but did, not because of her leadership, but her unwillingness to break from a crowd, and on the same week that Obama states his goal of eliminating the world’s nuclear weapons arsenals…what makes big news?

Yes. The big news of the day is, “OBAMA DOESN’T WEAR A LAPEL FLAG PIN“. Actually the story is he doesn’t wear the pin to demonstrate his patriotism, or he did at one time, but after 9/11 he doesn’t because…why is this in the news?

This story will be everywhere. And it’s a pathetic indication of how shallow the MSM can be.

Women and children killed in Iraq….but Obama doesn’t wear a pin.

Does Hillary wear a pin? Doesn’t matter, ‘cuz she sometimes shows cleavage and cackles.

Don’t wear a lapel pin Barack. Keep true to your convictions. Keep laughing Hillary (although it truly is a scary laugh).

Did I just go there?

Who knows, this might actually be a turning point. More people seem to support Obama on this position than his positions on health care, foreign policy, and the contractors in Iraq.

(P.S. Since I believe more journalists should just come out and say what candidate they are for, and because it’s sad when truth is under the thin veil of objectivism, I’m saying it….I support Barack.)

Smoking in the Name of Kids

I’m not gonna dive into this issue much but this is where I part ways with Liberals of the Left. I’m not against taxes. I’m just against unfair taxes. Slapping another “Tax for Children’s Health Care” is just such a tax. It seems whenever we Lefties want to get tax money, the easiest way is go after the smokers. Who really likes cigarettes anyway? I know I don’t (although IrishSpacemonk may be seen with a cigarette but that’s because he’s an entertainer.)

Here’s where I get confused. Hear me out. A cigarette tax is a regressive tax, in that it taxes harder the poor in society. The poor in society are often the very people that need health care assistance for their kids. Cigarettes are addictive and getting off the addiction isn’t easy, nor free. We want to have a society free of smokers. But a society free of smokers will not fix the problem that uninsured kids that still need health care. And where does the money come from then? I was reminded of this a month or so back when Hillary Clinton was asked about a ban on cigarettes. There’s no way a lefty could be for such a ban when you think of all the tax revenue that would disappear. That’s the bind.

So here’s my three points against with slapping smokers with another cigarette tax to pay for kid’s health care.

1. The tax is regressive, taxing the poor more heavily than the rich
2. The tax takes advantage of an addiction that we are trying to fight, and when the fight is successful, tax revenue declines, despite the remaining need for health care of kids
3. Increased prices for cigarettes will not make the use of cigarettes go down - look at illegal drugs for a perfect example

In Oregon, this tax attempt is called, the “Healthy Kids Initiative” (Measure 50). I’m not for big tobacco. In fact why not cap the price of cigarettes and tax the tobacco companies instead? Make it come from their bottom line. What I’m against is an $0.85 per pack tax on the poor, to pay the health case expenses of the poor….what do you think? Give me an argument to the contrary and I might change my mind.