Just how bad is Barack Obama?
As the presidential election gets into full swing and November draws closer, it seems to be the prevailing opinion of a lot of people that Barack Obama is the man our country needs to improve it’s image overseas, to improve it’s standing, to straighten out the mess we are in in Iraq. People who I believe should know better seem to be sold on the man, regardless of his liberal policies and voting records. They say he is no different and in fact, may be better than John McCain. I have been told that I am using scare tactics when I try to draw attention to Obama and how he fights for abortion.
I really believe one of the biggest mistakes we have been and are still making with Barack Obama is not digging deeper and going past the words in his speeches when he says he is for hope and change. Sure, our country needs change, but what kind of change is Obama offering? I believe it is the kind of change that will lead our country down a path from which it may never recover.
Earlier in the year, I wrote a blog article about Barack Obama and his support of the Global Poverty Act. The main focus of that article was the gun control portions of that bill. Let me go a little further here. Fighting poverty is a good thing, but fighting it by putting the citizens of our country on the back burner is not. Looking at the provisions of the Global Poverty Act and watching Obama on his recent overseas trip, you would think he is running for President of Earth and not President of the United States. Consider this from Investor’s Business Daily.
His legislation refers to the “millennium development goal,” a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.
It calls for the “eradication of poverty” in part through the “redistribution (of) wealth of land” and “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.” In other words: American resources.
It’s a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world’s population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet’s supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America’s population, just 5% of the world’s total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world’s GDP — to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.
We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama’s bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.
Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.
During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.
If you’re worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they’ll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama’s Global Poverty Act is the “international community’s” foot in the door.
There is a lot more information included in that article and I urge you to read the entire article for yourself. The direction Obama wants to take our country seems to be very clear. I have read a lot about Obama’s socialist tendencies and this information bears that out.
In the time we are living in, a time when energy costs are higher than they have ever been, ill feelings toward oil companies are rampant. I do agree that the profits they are reaping from their product do seem a bit extravagant. However, is it right to force them to give up those profits? We are a free market society, are we not? In another of his socialist tendencies, Barack Obama has came up with another brilliant plan to “help” us Americans deal with these high energy costs. From Townhall:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants domestic energy producers to forfeit profits to the government in order to issue $500 and $1,000 checks to consumers to help them keep up with rising energy costs.
Sure, Exxon Mobile is making record profits during this time of high oil prices and I am not saying something shouldn’t be done about said prices, but they are also paying record taxes on these profits. CNN reports:
In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called “other taxes.”
Excuse me folks, but that tax bill is nothing to sneeze at. If Obama is willing to force oil companies to forfeit profits, then where will he stop? If Obama thinks the owner of the business where I work is making too much money, is Obama going to force him to forfeit some of that to me or someone else, even after he pays the already high taxes on the business? That may seem ludicrous, but ask yourself this. Where will it stop? How far will Barack Obama go to force his liberal and socialist views onto the American people?
As the time draws closer for us to cast our votes, we need to consider our choices carefully. Barack Obama may make more of a change than our country can handle.
That’s my take!
Larry
[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Just_how_bad_is_Barack_Obama]
Your post is well thought out and I think hearftfelt. I respectfully disagree with you.
Big oil has done very well since Bush/Cheney have been in the White House.
Since then multimillionaires have become billionaires in unprecidented numbers.
I submit that GW Bush was put in the White House by the Neocons as their front to carry out their agenda which included invasion of Iraq and favorable government policy toward certain corporations especially big oil.
You claim that Obama wants to rob from the rich to give to the poor ala Robin hood.
I claim that the Neocons want to rob from the poor and give to the rich ala the Sheriff of Notingham.
You object to Obama being well received by Europeans claiming that he is “running for president of earth” . I hope that you were equally appaulled by GW Bush fraudulently appointing himself earth policeman with his actual intent to plunder Iraqi oil.
gasdocpol,
First of all, thanks for commenting and for being respectful, even if you do not agree.
I personally wish we had not invaded Iraq. I do not necessarily believe President Bush invaded Iraq to get at their oil. It is true that the oil companies have done quite well, but they have also been taxed very heavily for those profits. I do not argue those points.
My problem with Obama is how he seems to want to put other countries ahead of the United States. He wants us to bear the burden of bringing other countries out of poverty and while poverty needs to be reduced, the bulk of the fight should not be put on the American taxpayers.
Obama talks a lot about change, but he never gives a lot of details. If he were to do so, then maybe the American people would see him for what he really is.
I do not require details.
I think that he is smart and had enough common sense to come to the right conclusion about Iraq in October 2002 based on readily available information and without the years of training and decades of experience that others had and still got it wrong.
His October 2002 speech could be used in a textbook of logic or decision makiing (be it military, business or medical)
Not only did he make a valid, sound, cogent argument but he articulated it in simple clear terms.
Additionally he is a skilled poker played who can read other players and he is cool enough to sink a 40′ 3 pointer with the whole world watching.
Did you expect Obama to go before 200,000 Germans and moon them or say “screw you hurray for the USA” ? I think that they call it diplomacy.
McCain is a superstitious compulsive gambler (craps) with an anger management problem. He shoots from the hip and does not show any more indication of deeply understanding the issues now than he did when he was at the bottom of his class at the USNA.
gasdocpol,
You may not require details of the change Obama is wanting to bring about, but I do. What speech are you talking about?
You can find it by googling obama oct 2002 iraq
here is part of it.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
If someone gives you the details about what he (she) wants to do
A. From that point on, anyone can pick it up and run with it.
B. It does not mean that he (she) will be able to make it work or indeed if it can be made to work by anyone.
C. It just makes sense to you for whatever that is worth.
WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS WHETHER THE CANDIDATE IS SMART ENOUGH, HAVE COMMON SENSE TO MAKE THINGS WORK AND HAVE THE PEOPLE AND POLITICAL SKILLS TO MAKE IT WORK.
YOU CAN ASK A SURGEON HOW MANY TIMES HE HAS DONE A GIVEN OPERATION AND HE CAN PRESENT HIS CREDENTIALS REGARDING TRAINING, CERTIFICATION ETC.
IT IS MORE SUBJECTIVE IN CHOOSING A PRESIDENT.
James Buchanan probably had the most complete CV of any President and he is generally regarded the worst (Well , prior to GW Bush)
For me, it all boils down to this. I do not care how “cool” Barack Obama is. I do not care how he “knew” that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to our country. What I do care about is the direction he will take this country in the area of abortion, gun control, taxes, and other liberal policies. I am not trying to comare him with President Bush or with John McCain, I am looking at how he stands on the issues I care about and on those issues, he flunks out. Sorry, but that is just the way I feel.
Larry You have no problem with our getting in an not only unnecessary war but also a disastrous one????
Abortion- Like Obama , I want it to be safe, legal and rare.
There is no one close to me who might need one so I have no dog in this fight. I think that men should have nothing to say about abortion. I would accept anything the majority of women want. I am sure that many Neocons who are the most evil people in the USA are against abortion. I think that they are throwing a few crumbs to their conscience.
Taxes… Yours might go down but the very rich will go waaaay down. Much less money will go to the government which will be spent in a way that benefits us in the middle class.
Gun control Assault rifles need to be banned. Hand guns need control. Hunting rifles should be available for those who want to hunt with no restriction. WHERE IS OBAMA INTERFERING WITH THE LATTER?
WE NEED BOTH LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES. both to keep each other honest and because one or the other is called for in a given situation.
As far as cool is concerned, there are many successful managerial styles and a whole spectrum between hyper and cool and even paranoid (Nixon – I voted for him 3 times)
Let’s look at McCain.
He has always been a rebeleous, undisciplined wild child. He has his schtick together in the Senate. He has his “war hero” status established (which I question but that is another story) Socially he fits into the good old boy’s scene of the most exclusive club in the world.He dicusses things in committee and votes. Most Congess members do not make anything go except their staffs and possible their chiefs of staff do that. So we cannot count that as “experience”
McCain was in command of a training unit for one year in the Navy. Maybe he got some management experience there. Maybe he delegated a lot. He DID misbehave a lot during this period.
He is a supertstitious, compulsive gambler (craps) with an anger management problem. I can see how these traits can adversely affect his decision making. He does not seem to be any more mastery of the issues now than he did in his studies at USNA when he graduated at the bottom of his class.
Looking at Obama
Academically, he is clearly book smart and has an organized legal mind.
My definition of common sense is the ability to reach a valid conclusion without special , training, experience or information. Obama clearly demonstrated that in the question of the Iraq invasion. Maybe you think that the iraq war is no big deal . I disagree.
I will take a cool cerebral poker player over a volitile , emotional , intellectually lazy crap shooter any day.
haha…
Abortion, Gun Control and Taxes… I’m glad young folks like me see how dumb that argument is.
Taxes were higher during the era of Clinton and people did not suffer like they have during Bush’s term. Please stop using dumb arguments like these.
If my daugther gets raped and gets pregnant at her young tender age, I’m not leaving anything to the hands of your so called God. Also who is anyone to decide for a woman.
Gun control, gun control, gun control… Any dummy who thinks the democrats run from office to take their guns is just that. A dummy!
Personally I think it’s a race issue with you and you might not even know it because it’s subconcious.
FYI… I was not refering to you when saying dumb larry, I’m just saying the arguments in general I hear some of my buddies make are dumb.
I hope this country will evolve once again. The old silly way is not working, and will not work anymore.
mide,
First of all, I am sorry it has taken me so long to approve your comment. I was at work all day and I have just now had a moment to sit down at my computer.
Now, let me address what you have to say, in reverse order. To start with, there are plenty of African American men whom I would be glad to vote for as President. Barack Obama is certainly not one of them. You may think it is a subconcious race issue, but it is not. My distrust and dislike of Obama has nothing to do with his race.
I have never said that I believe Democrats run for office to take my guns. To answer your question, I want to ask one of my own. Please tell me how a politician telling me how many and what kind of guns I can have is going to affect the illegal guns that are already on the street? How is putting restrictions on my gun ownership going to affect those criminals who already do not intend to obey the law in the first place?
As for abortion, I would hate for your daughter or mine to be raped and to be faced with a decision such as that. It would not be an easy decision to make. The problem I have with Obama and abortion is how he fights any kind of restriction on the practice. It just seems to me that a person should choose life, above all else.
gasdocpol,
I believe I have made it clear, I do not care for John McCain either. I do not want to discuss with you his merits or lack thereof. Right now, my issue is with Obama and how he stands on the issues I care about.
In my earlier comments, I stated that I personally wished that we had never invaded Iraq. I believe it was a mistake to go there, but if President Bush and his administration knew it all along may never be known. That part of the discussion can wait for another time.
As for your comments about gun control, please read the response that I wrote to mide. However, I will add one thing. You mentioned how handguns should be controlled but hunting rifles should availiable with no restrictions to those who wish to hunt. I will say again that the restrictions gun control advocates wish to put on handguns are not going to affect the way criminals operate in the first place. Do you believe a criminal is going to get rid of his illegal handgun because someone passes a law that makes them illegal? I think not. Also, for the past two years, I have not hunted with a rifle. Instead, I use a Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum revolver. So, most handgun restrictions would make it that much harder to hunt.
Larry ,
I will probably never understand your position on guns. With all due respect, here are some of my thoughts.
1. If you need to hunt with handguns, that would give you a reason for packing “heat”. I assume that is not your motive
2. Does it make you feel like 007 ?
3. Does it it make you feel as if you are at the “Gunfight at OK Coral” ?
4. Is “quick draw” part of the routine ?
I, personally, am very much opposed to the government taking money from the hardworking productive members of society and giving it to the lazy, non productive welfare cheats.
I am also against the government providing owners of big business laws to make obscene profits at the expense of an undercompensated middle class.
Henry Ford was an enlightened entrepreneur who paid his workers what was considered wager excessive so that they too would buy a Ford. (When everyone does better, everyone does better)
Bush’s buddy, Kenneth Lay was richly compensated for running what was basically a scam.
The CEO of Bear Sterns had a salary of $30,000,000 before he went on corporate welfare.
Deregulation (in which McCain’s economic guru Phil Gramm, was instrumental*) helped some people make a lot of money in sub-prime mortgages before the house of cards tumbled.
* Gramm was also instrumental as a Senator for deregulation that made ENRON possible. Gramm’s wife was on its board of directors.
gasdocpol,
I don’t need to hunt with a handgun. It is a choice I make because I want to do so. It has nothing to do with “packing heat” as you call it or 007. It has nothing to do with any of the reasons you stated. The right to bear arms is a right given to us by the creators of our country. As for quick draw being part of the routine, are you talking about when I am hunting? If so, that couldn’t be further from the truth. That wouldn’t be save and also wouldn’t hardly be possible with the handgun I carry when hunting. If you had ever hefted a Ruger Redhawk, then you would understand.
What IS the appeal of hunting with a handgun?
I guess you limit your quick draw prowess to non hunting situations.
Fortunately I never felt the need to heft a Ruger Redhawk.
My only experience with a hand gun was at a pistol range , firing Olympic Style when I was training for the Pentathlon many years ago.
gasdocpol,
The appeal of hunting with a handgun is that is more challenging than hunting with a rifle. I have to be closer to what I am hunting, in order to get a clean shot. As for the quick draw comment, I will say this. The quick draw isn’t part of my routine, no matter if I am hunting or not. I really don’t understand where you are going with that comment.
gasdocpol, the comment about assault rifles and handguns needing to be controlled but hunting rifles are okay is just wrong.
I can guarantee you that if I had the choice of someone spraying bullets with an assault rifle or someone that knows how to handle a bolt action rifle up on top of a building taking head shots, I will take the assault rifle every time. With the bolt action, someone is going to die with every shot, not just wounded.
But, let them start with the assault rifles and handguns and I can guarantee you that they will come after the hunting rifles and shotguns next. It has already been attempted to control them with restrictions on how many shells a clip or mag will hold.
gasdocpol, I would like to hear your definition of an assault rifle, if you don’t mind.
Gary. In my mind, an assault weapon is one which can be placed in automatic mode. You know the kind with which someone who has a grudge against the world can take out a bunch of innocent bystanders in a few seconds.
Larry
Hunting with a bow would bring some of the same interest and amount of challenge to hunting. I suppose that it is just out of the question.
Comment has been edited to remove objectionable content
gasdocpol,
For your information, I have also hunted with a bow. I did not stop hunting with a rifle when I did so. I traded my rifle for the handgun because it was the only way I could afford to get the Ruger. Otherwise, I would have kept the rifle and hunted with it at times.
You can see I edited your original comment. I believe you will know the reason why. That will be the last time your comments are approved at all, if you insist on being stupid about it and writing content like you wrote. Be warned, I will mark you as spam if it happens again.
Gasdocpol, do you realize that you can’t buy a full auto weapon in the US without having a class 3 federal firearms license and they are not cheap and are very hard to get approved for. The assault rifles that you talk about are nothing more than semi auto rifles with a pistol grip of some sort, they are not full auto.
Once again, YOU CAN NOT BUY A FULL AUTO WEAPON OR OWN ONE LEGALLY WITHOUT A CLASS 3 FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE AND AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK. You also have to renew this license every year.
To my knowledge, there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned full auto weapon in the US since they became illegal, a very long time ago.