Obamaworld

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".        (Declaration of Independence)

The following post is by a guest contributor and concerns our most basic liberties. It is quoted in full:


"The choice is  clear to me. I do not want to go to Obamaworld. To become a denizen of that world would mean giving my future, my fortune, such as it is, and my liberty to a 'leader' who knows not what to do with it or perhaps worse, does.

This leader is so caught up with his own image and likeness that nothing else matters.  It is now clear that this president doesn't even communicate with his own party leaders, never mind world leaders. When one's image is all important, burnishing it is a full time endeavor.  Palavering on "The View" with celebrities is an example of that burnishing. Rome burns and Nero frolics with TV personalities. Note however that this time many of those are absent.

But, even more than fiscal ineptness and empty promises, the threat to our freedoms looms large. Governing by executive decree smacks of Caesar Chavez and his ilk. Some of our most precious freedoms are the right to life, the right of religious expression, the right to speak out: to dissent.

The campaign to continually impinge on those freedoms is strong, flourishing in Obamaworld. Particularly with regard to the Department of Health and Human Services mandates eliminating the right of church sponsored health facilities (or any one else for that matter) to not pay (therefore support) contraceptive and abortifacient services.

There is but a small movement to the next step. I will speak here of abortion. I know of this fight against this intrinsic evil. I was there early on. I speak of it in a medical sense. Once life is imbedded in the womb, there is a human being. Period. No question. This is called a child. A baby. It clings to its mother; it hears, it feels, it moves. If you do an amniocentesis, this child will flinch from the needle.

When real time ultrasound sonograms were first introduced, I knew a radiologist who was invited to view a pregnant uterus. After he saw the baby sucking his/her thumb, he was so moved he spent the entire next year studying the Bible.

Once this child with a beating heart, a tiny growing brain and sensation is within, there is only one way to remove it. That way is to forcibly extract it, sometimes to fracture him/her, to suction it out. If the child is late-term (late-term = full term or at viability: able to live outside the womb) it means delivering it and leaving it to die. Period.

Ironically, wanted children are saved in neonatal units everywhere. Wanted children--3 pounds and up.

It is my contention that many do not understand these facts--they are often 'offended' by them.  If I am a radical: so be it."

Sandra

It's More Than the Economy, Stupid.

In 1992, former President Clinton ran for president with the slogan: "It's about the economy, stupid". Well, this time around, it's about more than the economy.

Despite what the pundits may say, underlining the issues of unemployment, slow growth and unprecedented debt, there is deep concern about where we are heading.

In a recently discovered tape from 1998, Barack Obama is heard as saying that he believed in the "redistribution" of wealth. And in a quote from the 2008 campaign, he responded to a question from "Joe the plumber" by saying that we need to "spread the wealth".  As president, he has stated on numerous occasions that he aims to raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their "fair share".

Without serious cuts in spending, taxes on the rich alone will neither cover the deficit or whatever other programs Obama has in mind. Additional sources will have to be found. Potentially any private asset (401k's and IRA's for instance) may be the target for new taxes.

As part of the "Affordable Care Act" (or Obamacare) regulations have been issued to force religious institutions to provide contraceptives and abortifacient drugs in their health insurance policies. The mandate is contrary to the beliefs of Catholics and other people of faith.

It should be self evident to the administration that such an imposition is clearly in violation of the second amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. If allowed to stand, what else will follow: will religious institutions be forced to perform abortions or other procedures mandated by government? Will procedures now covered be denied as "too costly"?

Also under the "Affordable Care Act", twenty new or additional taxes will be imposed on individuals and businesses. Included are an additional Medicare tax on income, a surtax on investment income, the individual mandate "tax", an excise tax on health insurance etc. Given a history of rising health care costs, these taxes and the social security medicare deduction, are bound to increase.

In a second term, we can expect more regulations from an Obama administration. His propensity to issue executive decrees to circumvent legislative intent or to implement rules without Congressional approval will keep the bureaucracy busy to our detriment.

Consider for example decrees he has already issued granting waivers for work requirements of the welfare law passed under Clinton and his decree changing immigration rules without Congress's involvement.

In light of President Obama's record and his statements, it is more than likely that we will see more of the same if he is reelected to a term where he will have "more flexibility".

This election is critical. It is more than just about the economy. It calls into question what our future holds. It is about individual freedom and REAL opportunity. It is about what type of government we want and what type of country we want for ourselves and for our children.

When is a "Liberal" not a liberal?

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal ("The Obama Democrats"--9/13/12), Daniel Henninger said the following:

     "They've (Barack Obama and the modern Democratic Party) got goals, and what they want from the people---is compliance."

     "The Obama Democrats are no longer the party of FDR, Truman, JFK or Clinton. All were combative partisans, but their view of the American system was fundamentally positive."

     "An Obama victory wouldn't be just a defeat for the GOP. It would be a defeat of the post-World War II Democratic Party. And they know it. The progressive left has wanted to push Democratic liberalism over the cliff for decades. This is their best shot to get it done."

     "FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare asked all to buy in to supporting it. Obama-Care doesn't; Mr. Obama revels in explaining how 'they' will pay for 'you'. Left unanswered, demagoguery can win elections. And take a generation to undo."


Liberalism is defined as: "tolerant; not narrow in one's ideas and views; broad minded." (World Book Dictionary).  The Democratic leaders mentioned in Mr. Henninger's article generally had those defined attributes.  But should President Obama be considered a "Liberal Democrat"?

Before responding, we should consider not only the above article but also the President's record over the last three plus years. President Obama has:

     *Advised companies that they need not comply with a law that requires notification to employees 60 days prior to an impending layoff.

     *Indicated that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

     *Not effectively enforced the immigration laws and nullified certain provisions by executive edict.

     *Issued regulations forcing religious organizations to provide their employees health care coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

     *Provided waivers for work requirements contrary to the provisions of the welfare reform act passed in the Clinton administration.

     *Supported and signed the "Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare) which was essentially negotiated in secret with little public discussion contrary to promises of open government.

     *Conducted foreign affairs and defense policies in a partisan and unilateral manner, negating the overall bipartisan record of both Republican and Democratic administrations of past years.

In summary, President Obama has shown an arrogant intolerance for views not his own, in issuing unconstitutional decrees negating duly passed Congressional legislation, in his policies of divisiveness, not inclusion and in his conduct of foreign affairs and the national defense.

               He is not in the liberal Democratic tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK and Clinton.

Economic Lessons From the Past

At the Democrat Convention last week, former President Clinton defended President Obama's proposal to impose higher taxes on the rich. Mr. Clinton stated that during his term of office, economic growth was good and the rich were paying higher marginal tax rates.

In an article entitled "What Obama Didn't Learn From the 1990s" (Wall Street Journal. Aug. 3, 2012) written by Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital, states: "The economic growth of the 1950s, the 60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn't high marginal tax rates".

According to the author, the causes of economic growth are "successful investment and rising equity values." Furthermore: "The notion that the robust economy of the 1950s, 60s and 90s proves that historically high government spending and taxes have little, if any effect on growth is naive-----today's endless increases in government spending with no discernible improvement in our infrastructure or educational outcomes makes it painfully obvious that politics and special interests have undercut its benefits".

During the last four years, we have seen the results of Obama's economic policies:

     *Unemployment of over 8% for the last 43 months.

     *63.5% of the civilian labor force working, the worst outcome in 31 years.

     *Anemic economic growth averaging just above 2%.

     *A $16 trillion debt and still growing.

     *Continuing low numbers of jobs added (96000 in August).

     *Just over half the total number of jobs added in this "recovery"than in each of the last nine recoveries since WWII.

President Obama's campaign calls for a continuation of his presidency and for the country to stay on the same track. His call cannot be taken seriously given his track record.

We have a better choice. Mitt Romney has a proven record and experience in the private sector, in running the Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Granted he does not speak in flowery terms, but he is the candidate best suited to fix our ailing economy and the candidate that I will vote for.

We Should Let President Obama Go.

Despite the fact that President Obama continues to deny his record by talking about anything but, we know what the last four years have given us:

     *An economy that is barely growing and failing to generate enough jobs.

     *A stimulus bill that did not work wasting tax money as in the Solyndra experience.

     *Health care legislation pushed through Congress in secrecy and with special deals.

     *The implementation of health care regulations that threaten religious liberty.

     *Growing debt and out of control spending.

     *A tendency to govern by executive order rather than working with Congress and using the "bully pulpit" to lead and persuade the American electorate.

     *Continued attempts to divide us by stressing what divides, not what unites us.

     *A campaign that uses acrimonious tactics and questionable facts when criticizing opponents.

President Clinton was able to work with a Republican Congress. Why can't Obama?

The fact that the President has continued his divisive ways does does not bode well if he is reelected. We would see more of the same: economic stagnation, divisive politics, deadlock, a disunited country, government by fiat and less freedom.

President Obama may be an  OK guy and a good family man but he is a bad president. Quoting Clint Eastwood, we should "let him go".