The election is almost here, and I am ready for it to be over. At the same time, I am frightened by the prospect, which appears highly likely, that Barak Obama will be the next President of the United States.
If you have been reading this blog, you know that I strongly disagree with Obama’s political philosophies and with many of the policies that he is proposing. Obama has based his campaign on the promise of “hope” and “change”. If Obama wins the election, you can be assured that he will fulfill his promise of change. The question is what type of change do you want. Do you think the changes that Obama is promising will be positive or negative for the future of the country?
I am listing below the top ten things that concern and even frighten me about the prospect of an Obama presidency.
(1) After a long campaign, the real Barak Obama is still a mystery to me. Is he a far left-wing ideologist who thinks like some of his “friends in the neighborhood,” such as William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, who shares the hate-America and racist views of his former pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and who initially refused to wear an American flag label pen or to hold his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem? Or is he the calm, deliberate, and reasonable centrist who is presenting himself to the voters as someone who shares traditional American values, who now holds rallies and tapes campaign commercials with an American flag in the background, and who promises to work across party lines in a bipartisan fashion to bring the country together? Has Obama outgrown the fascination with Marxism that he demonstrated during his childhood and early adult life, or has he simply created a new and false image of himself in order to enable him to attract votes and get elected? Obama has run a brilliant and carefully scripted campaign. His oratory skills, demeanor, and personal appeal are so reassuring that it is easy to forget about his background and voting record and to ignore his political philosophies. Who is the real Barak Obama?
(2) The country’s previous experiences with “one-party rule” have not been good. When the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress during the early part of this decade, they lost their way and disappointed even their most ardent supporters. If Obama wins the White House, and if the Democrats gain even more control over Congress, which is predicted, we will have no checks and balances on the power of the Democratic Party. There are predictions that the Democrats could even gain enough seats in the U.S. Senate to have a filibuster-proof majority, which means they could pass anything they wanted with little opposition or debate. The Democratic Party has moved sharply to the left and is controlled by liberals. If you want to change America, you will definitely get what you want when you have Barak Obama as President, Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader presiding over an even larger Democratic majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives with an even larger Democratic majority in the House than she currently enjoys. How often do you think Obama will take out his veto pen under these circumstances? The answer is never. Who will be there to apply the brakes as the country continues its slide toward socialism? The answer is no one.
(3) I believe Obama’s tax and economic policies, if implemented, will be severely detrimental to the country. The result will be lower growth, fewer jobs, and less incentive for investors. Daniel Henninger, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal wrote on October 30, 2008 as follows: “The real ‘change’ being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of ‘the past eight years’ but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.” Henninger says the country “is at a philosophical tipping point.” In his opinion, which I share, the goal of Obama and the Democratic Party “is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its ‘social market economy.’ Under this notion, …… business is allowed to create ‘wealth’ so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.”
(4) The next President of the United States, in all likelihood, will have the opportunity to appoint at least two and perhaps more Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. The next President will also have the opportunity to fill numerous vacancies—probably 200 or more—in the various federal courts below the Supreme Court. All of these appointments are for life, which means the next President will be able to influence the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts for decades to come. Obama has made it clear that he does not believe judges should be restricted in their rulings by the language of the Constitution. He also has pledged to appoint judges who will be sympathetic rather than objective and unbiased. I believe Obama’s judicial appointments would result in a large number of new federal judges who would feel free to make the law rather than interpret it. This would do great harm to our country and to our respect for the rule of law.
(5) If Obama becomes the next President, I am deeply concerned that the prediction made by Joe Biden, his running mate, will come true. Remember it was Biden who said:
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator President of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."
(6) During the early stages of the current Presidential campaign, the discussion was dominated by the war in Iraq. Obama initially attracted widespread attention and support because of his opposition to the war and his pledge to end the war. He opposed the troop surge, which has clearly been successful and has paved the way for a victory in Iraq. At this point, it is irrelevant to debate whether the war in Iraq was a major mistake, as many claim. The question now is whether we want to win the war or to lose it. The recent success in Iraq has not changed Obama’s determination to withdraw our troops in accordance with an artificial time schedule. I am concerned that Obama, if elected President, will turn a possible victory in Iraq into a defeat, with catastrophic results for the Middle East and the entire world, and with the result that all of the lives lost and dollars spent will have been in vain.
(7) Despite our many problems, I believe the United States of America is still the greatest force for good in the world. I also believe we have many enemies who want to destroy our way of life and take away our freedom. We all want to avoid war and to live in peace. In my opinion, the best way to ensure that we will live in peace is for our country to maintain a strong military and a strong commitment to our national defense. Weakness in these areas would be an invitation for our enemies to attack us. It is not clear to me that Obama shares this philosophy. Moreover, I do not believe Obama has the knowledge, experience or judgment that we need in a Commander-in-Chief. I believe the country will be at greater risk of harm if Obama becomes President because our enemies will view him as a leader who is weak on national defense and who would not have the resolve to defend the country.
(8) We are rapidly approaching the point where the majority of the voters in this country will not pay income taxes. Under Obama’s tax plans, many of these voters will actually receive a check from the government instead of sending a check to the government. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” We will soon have more “Pauls” than “Peters.” I do not think our country and our system of government can survive in an environment where the majority of voters can elect government officials on the basis of their pledge to take money away from the minority and redistribute it to the majority. This is a dangerous path, but it is the path that Obama wants to follow. You cannot make poor people rich by making rich people poor.
(9) Many Democrats have been promoting a nationalized health care system for years. In my opinion, a nationalized health care system would be a disaster. Obama’s health care proposals would be a major step in the direction of a nationalized system. Obama’s proposals rely heavily on more government mandates, regulations, and subsidies and would have the effect of greatly expanding the government’s control over health care. His proposals also would maintain the inequities in the current federal tax code under which some citizens receive subsidized health insurance coverage and others do not. If you are willing to turn more responsibility for your health care over to the government, you will like Obama’s health care proposals. For me, I prefer McCain’s health care plan because I want to retain maximum personal responsibility for my own health care and for my own health insurance coverage.
(10) Many liberals, especially those on the far left, have a tendency to want to silence those who disagree with them and even target them for retribution. Some far left radicals even view people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as heroes for their ability to suppress dissent. I don’t know how Obama will treat his political opponents, but there are a few early warning signs that cause me concern. For example, Obama supports the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which is designed to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition. Note that he does not want to interfere with those elements of the media that support him and share his political views. A few days ago, Obama kicked off his campaign plane three reporters that worked for newspapers that had endorsed McCain. Although some defend Obama by saying McCain did the same thing, those who were dismissed by McCain were commentators—not reporters. There is a big difference, although many of today’s reporters don’t seem to understand the difference. A week or so ago, a television reporter in Florida asked Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate, some tough questions, which was rare but is what reporters are supposed to do. The Obama campaign took great offense and blackballed the reporter and her television station from further interviews. Some Obama supporters even started investigating the reporter and her husband. Finally, take a look at Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber asked Obama a simple question about his tax policies, and Obama responded that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Democratic officials in Ohio immediately began to investigate Joe the Plumber in an effort to smear his name and reputation. Obama did nothing to defend Joe the Plumber’s right to ask a question or to stop the smear tactics being used against him. How does Obama feel about political dissent and how will he treat his political opponents? I don’t know, but the early warning signs should concern all of us.
This will be my last post before the election. In closing, I would like to quote Ron Hart, one of my favorite columnists, who wrote, “My fear is that, if elected, McCain would not make good on his promises or that, if he wins, Barack Obama will.”
Posts
