No doubt you have heard of President Obama's comment of Friday, July 13. In part, he said:
The problem with this argument is addressed in a blog written by James Pethokoukis writing for the American Enterprise Institute, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on July 17: "Few opponents of higher taxes are arguing that the most successful Americans should pay no taxes---" (in order to pay for public goods that the government provides). But Obama has added to this point "---that there is no such thing as individual achievement or merit. All success is directly due to society's collective effort as manifested by government".
As a result of these recent comments by Obama (and past ones as well such as his comment of "spreading the wealth" in 2008), we now have a clearer understanding of his views. I describe them as that of a community organizer applied to the national stage. That is a view that seeks to redistribute wealth by taking from the more successful and redistributing it to the less fortunate. It is a static view of the economy in which little or no growth can occur.
The opposing view relies on a system of free enterprise where individuals through their own initiative and ingenuity increase wealth through technological innovation and increases in productivity benefiting all. This view does not deny the government's role in providing the infrastructure and the ground rules necessary to insure fair competition. But beyond that, government should "get out of the way".
Any president's constituency should include everyone in the country, not just those to whom he would provide special favors or would benefit from his redistributive schemes (and vote for him). President Obama's views are divisive in that he attacks and demonizes those who are successful in growing the economy.
The choice in November is clear: To vote for an ideology that puts government at the center of our economy (and society) leading to economic stagnation or to vote for a idea that recognizes the right of a free people to pursue their own individual dreams and have the opportunity to succeed, leading to economic prosperity.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create
this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business--you didn't build that.
Somebody else made that happen".
The problem with this argument is addressed in a blog written by James Pethokoukis writing for the American Enterprise Institute, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on July 17: "Few opponents of higher taxes are arguing that the most successful Americans should pay no taxes---" (in order to pay for public goods that the government provides). But Obama has added to this point "---that there is no such thing as individual achievement or merit. All success is directly due to society's collective effort as manifested by government".
As a result of these recent comments by Obama (and past ones as well such as his comment of "spreading the wealth" in 2008), we now have a clearer understanding of his views. I describe them as that of a community organizer applied to the national stage. That is a view that seeks to redistribute wealth by taking from the more successful and redistributing it to the less fortunate. It is a static view of the economy in which little or no growth can occur.
The opposing view relies on a system of free enterprise where individuals through their own initiative and ingenuity increase wealth through technological innovation and increases in productivity benefiting all. This view does not deny the government's role in providing the infrastructure and the ground rules necessary to insure fair competition. But beyond that, government should "get out of the way".
Any president's constituency should include everyone in the country, not just those to whom he would provide special favors or would benefit from his redistributive schemes (and vote for him). President Obama's views are divisive in that he attacks and demonizes those who are successful in growing the economy.
The choice in November is clear: To vote for an ideology that puts government at the center of our economy (and society) leading to economic stagnation or to vote for a idea that recognizes the right of a free people to pursue their own individual dreams and have the opportunity to succeed, leading to economic prosperity.
I agree with Norm's thoughts as well as those he quoted. Yet I wish to caution there are additional views held by this President not addressed. Going back to the Rev. Wright G.D. America "sermon", at this time I began to research the Trinity United Church of Christ, "Obama's church" for the past 20 years and the Rev. Wright being his spiritual mentor. The church has a publication called "The Trumpet". I could access and read this publication on-line so I began to research and read some of the articles. One article in particular caught my attention and this was an article which honored Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam Leader in the USA. I think most folks reading this know enough re: Farrakhan to have had their eyebrows raised numerous times by this man. Honored by "Obama's" church......Reading the church profile, this church teaches the African Liberation Theology introduced in the USA by James Cone. I think back to the Presidents response to the incident in Connecticut with the Black college professor and the police officer responding to a possible break-in 911 call. The President immediately stated: "the Ct. police officer acted stupidly." On to Ft. Hood and Major Hassan's terrorist attack, and the President urged people not to jump to conclusions. The previous thoughts may also give us a greater understanding of Mr. Obama's "views". Of course, the ideology of a community organizer was well put by Norm, yet go back even further to the people Obama stated as his influences and/or people he "hung around" from Hawaii to Harvard (per his books). I note the influences in "one's environment", come to "mold the person". Going from community organizer to Chicago politician, more "molding" of Barack Obama. Remember the bribery and coercion used to pass Obamacare? As we understand the numerous "green energy loans", dare we examine how the Obama's purchased their home with the huge assist of Tony Rezko? I researched this back in 08' too......If memory serves, the Chicago Tribune did a story about the transaction. Keeping with Chicago politics, did you take the time and visit the official Barack Obama 2012 campaign site? There is a list of seven top Romney donors on the campaign web-site, check it out and see how you can forward information about a Romney supporter. You may wish to read the columns by Kimberly Strassel (WSJ) titled: Obama's Enemy List....(parts one and two... part two in today's 7-20, WSJ). Also recall during the Health Care Bill debate, the White House communications director requested people forward to the Communications Office, any e-mails or other forms of correspondence which they believe conflicted with what had been stated by the President.
ReplyDeleteI will close by reminding you of many people that have been "used" by Obama and then thrown "under the bus". The list may be long so just a couple: Dem. Rep Stupak and the pro-life dems re: their vote to support the President per the "promise"......Arlen Spector also had the promise of credit for seniority and a major committee chair if he switched parties. And of course, Spector received no such consideration and no support when he ran for re-election. And last but certainly not least, as the crucial vote was about to take place in Wisconsin, the President flew over the state and offered no support what-so-ever to those who gave him such support in 2008.....I could write a book regarding this Presidents character, or more correct, lack thereof........Narcissist, socialist, racist, at the very least sympathetic to Islam.
May God Bless America and may our religious freedoms be restored.
Kenny D.
Kenny D.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding us of the roots of Obama's radicalism. As you say "one's environment" does indeed "mold the person"
I'm struck by the fact that Obama's background was available in 2008 and his lap dogs in the media (with some exceptions) chose to either ignore it or spin it Obama's way. I also think that many of the public (led by the media) were so infatuated by Obama's youth and heritage to overlook his radical affiliations and lack of experience.
I am in agreement with you about the dangers to our freedoms including our religious freedom that you highlight. Individual liberty is the foundation of our way of life and once it is gone, it will extremely difficult to reclaim it. Your mention of the Strassel article is relevant to that point and should be read by all.
Norm
PS One minor correction to your comments:The incident regarding the Black college professor you mentioned took place in Cambridge, Mass. I remember it well as it is my home state.